IL Track Tested: BMW 528i, Six vs. Four

Those are pretty impressive numbers from the turbo 4. About the same as my '02 Altima, which had the same power rating but weighed 600 lbs. less.

Good numbers for the inline four turbo. Too bad it'll never be as silky smooth as the I6 though...

For those prices, I was expecting 6 seconds or less
BD

I think this is a VERY smart model for BMW.

They have no midsize competition in the low to mid $40's, and I'm sure half of the 5's business comes from this base model.
BD

But what about a Camry's performance against these? 0-60 is king!

Lets be honest, lots of people buy a 5 series just to say they drive a BMW. The 528 probably makes up for 60% of the 5 series sales, and 0-60 in 6.4 is going to be more than sufficient enough for these people. The I6 will be missed for its exhaust note and that double cream smoothness, but thats about it.

Yeah,when the base model of 3 engine choices pulls a mid-14 second quarter mile and 30mpg highway, I think you're base is in a safe position.

Majin - Who says it won't be as smooth as the inline six? I guess the inline six is so smooth they use solid engine mounts because it doesn't vibrate or create any harshness? No? Well then perhaps you are giving too much weight to the concept of balance in an line six, flat six, and v12, huh?

As usual, these times are super slow but it is good to see that the Turbo 4 is faster than the I6.

C&D got a 6.4 out of the 2011 528i. So that means this new 528i, in the hands of a better-than-average driver, should be able to run 5.7 or so. And that makes perfect sense considering BMW even quotes 6.2 for the car. At a minimum it typically works out to 5% faster than what the manufacture says, sometimes more but 5% faster than 6.2 would net 5.9. The new car WILL run 0-60 faster than 6 seconds.

Insideline, you should just use manufacture figures to be safe. There is no reason why your actual tests should be slower than that...

I/L should just stick to subjective information and a good place for photos/videos...

"Lets be honest, lots of people buy a 5 series just to say they drive a BMW. The 528 probably makes up for 60% of the 5 series sales, and 0-60 in 6.4 is going to be more than sufficient enough for these people. The I6 will be missed for its exhaust note and that double cream smoothness, but thats about it."

In the NY metro area (surely one of the top two BMW markets with SoCal), I have been watching the breakdown of the model levels since this came up with the LT 528. My estimate is about 65% 535 and the remaining 35% split between the 528 and 550. It's nt even close. I have not priced it out but I assume that the performance of the 535 while still getting 6 cylinder fuel economy is selling itself.

@gtrguy2012

"Lets be honest, lots of people buy a 5 series just to say they drive a BMW. The 528 probably makes up for 60% of the 5 series sales, and 0-60 in 6.4 is going to be more than sufficient enough for these people. The I6 will be missed for its exhaust note and that double cream smoothness, but thats about it."

- Or rather, lots of people buy it for a more upscale interior which are not comparable even if you spec up a Toyota Camry.

@hooklyn:

C&D and Motortrend don't have a particular formula for 0-60 runs. They do whatever produces the best times regardless of the damage they may be doing to the cars. Their times are not necessarily representative of what an owner of one of these cars would get.

Since every car venue comes up with different numbers, perhaps Edmunds should come up with a "glossary" that gives us the track specs of every car they have tested. I know that C&D and R&T do it.

I can't afford a BMW, which is fine because I don't trust the German cars to be reliable. And even if I bought one and it was reliable, there is still the issue of expensive maintenance.

For $26,616 (according to Edmunds New Cars) I can purchase a V6 Camry SE, with Navigation, Entune, and a sunroof. Sounds good to me. And it sounded even better when I read Motor Trend's comparo where the SE V6 got a 0-60 of 5.8 seconds. By the way, the EPA numbers of the Camry V6 are 21/30-- not too shabby.

However, my search goes on. The Detroit show is causing me a headache, because most of the upcoming cars won't be out until after my statement that I would get a new car by early Spring.

arumage" Hooklyn knows why there is a difference in time with IL but he is too obtuse to admit it. There is only so much one can do with an automatic car to get the best times anyway.

hooklyn says:

"As usual, these times are super slow"

I'm sorry but these times are not super slow. They are perfectly reasonable and not so long ago would have been considered quite swift. Why do Americans feel the need to be able to accelerate ridiculously fast?

Hmmm....
2011 I6
Db @ Full Throttle: 66.3

2012 4-banger
Db @ Full Throttle: 69.0

That's quite a jump in NVH. I've never liked hoary 4-bangers which belong in Civics. Not to mention the eventual reliability issues of an engine much more complex than the reliable outgoing NA I6. Thank you EPA!!!

Truly lament the eventual loss of the BMW's NA I6 from our shores...

@wackford: To answer your question-- at least from my perspective:

The numbers give an idea of how quickly the car in question can accelerate, go up hills, carry weight, etc. The 0-60 is just a tool that may remove certain cars from a potential buyer's list, and not necessarily something that most drivers would be doing. The quarter mile numbers are not all that relevant.

More relevant are 30-50 and 50-70. But not at Car and Driver, which doesn't allow cars with manual transmissions to downshift, meaning that automatic cars are usually always faster in those two stats, because if you floor the gas pedal, the transmission will downshift. (Well, maybe not some of those cars that game the EPA numbers by having reluctant trannies.)

@hooklyn:

"Insideline, you should just use manufacture figures to be safe. There is no reason why your actual tests should be slower than that..."

- That is the entire point of coming to IL: to get the editors' POV and for them to validate manufacturer claims.

I want a 328i Wagon with this Turbo I4.

I'm all for a turbo-4, enough experience with my Puegot-built 1.6T in my Mini, and even though these force-fed engines make some serious power, I always felt it was an empty artificial power, not the rich, always-in-reserve, power a good V-6 could provide.
On that note, I'm totally on board with the this new turbo4 in the new 3-series. I never said I couldn't live with a turbo-4, and the benefit of lighter weight is just as important to me.

"In the NY metro area (surely one of the top two BMW markets with SoCal), I have been watching the breakdown of the model levels since this came up with the LT 528. My estimate is about 65% 535 and the remaining 35% split between the 528 and 550. It's nt even close. I have not priced it out but I assume that the performance of the 535 while still getting 6 cylinder fuel economy is selling itself."

So true, Brian.
While I do not have nationwide sales figure, 535i seems to have the lion's share in the market here in Metro NY. Rarely would I see an 528i on the street. I'd go so far as to say 90% of the F10s here are 535 AWD, with 550 AWD being second and 528 RWD/AWD a distant third--only saw a few so far. As for RWD 535, I've seen exactly ONE last year. It was in my garage.

But then, haters would say only those who couldn't afford a 550i would get the lesser 535i. Hate on, people. Here in Metro NY you ain't impressing the Joneses with any standard-issue German car anyway, so why not just buy the car you want?

Most BMW (or car) drivers don't even know what a cylinder is or its purpose in an internal combustion engine.
As soon as they hear "faster and better mpgs than the 2011 model" and "turbo" (not knowing what a turbine is or again its purpose in an internal combustion engine) will be sold.

@ed - amen. Never understood the mag's tests for 30-50 or 50-70 without downshifting. What sort of total moron drives a manual and attempts to go from 50-70 in top gear? Why would anyone ever do that?

@frank - there's a video on bmwblog of a test drive in the F30 328i; the guys lays rubber for 10-15 feet with the turbo 4. I'm guessing that the 328i will chug through 0-60 in less than 5.6 seconds. Hell my 330i ZHP (about the same weight) did that back in 2003 and it had far less torque and less HP made much higher in the rev range than the 2012 F30.

Typo:

"The new 2012 engine makes the same 240 horsepower as the outgoing 3.0, but produces 30 pound-feet more torque -- and does so at 1,250 rpm instead of 6,600. Adding insult to injury, the I4 is lighter, too."

I think you meant to say "and does so at 1,250 rpm instead of 2,600 rpm".

2012:
Torque (lb-ft @ rpm): 258 @ 1,250-4,800

2011:
Torque (lb-ft @ rpm): 230 lb-ft @ 2,600 rpm

@hooklyn: You obviously did not read Church's reply to your constant whining about IL's times on the Veloster DCT article.

These turbo fours are impressive (have not driven the BMW but have driven Audi A4 loaners). However, the sound is really terrible. I think the only 4 cylinders that sound decent that I have heard are the Toyota-sourced 4 with aftermarket exhaust in the Lotus Elise and the Honda S2000. The rest sound very agricultural to me.
This is the future. Go to Europe and see that people don't care about the badges as much as the overall driving experience. NA fours in midsize luxury sedans is the standard (as well as diesels of course).

Nice numbers, but I'll withhold judgement until I can sample the engine myself. One disappointment I have with Audi 2.0T is the throttle hesitation. And the hesitation is inconsistent -- One time there will be noticeable lag, and the next virtually none. I was told repeatedly that it's normal behavior for turbo engines with a drive-by-wire throttle. It's otherwise a great engine, with good pull at low RPM's and impressive fuel economy. I would happily give up one or two mpg's to eliminate that lag.

@hotrodw

I have the same question about turbo lag. I would be curious what the 0-60 time is from a stomp-and-go with no pedal overlap. The difference between that time and the pedal overlap time is the turbo lag and we can measure it. IL listening?

Uh........why isn't the EPA MPG for either car listed?

Come on, guys.......
BD

"NA fours in midsize luxury sedans is the standard (as well as diesels of course). "

The real reason is tax policy...they tax on fuel type and size of engines....if the tax was gone you would see the free market explode with larger gasoline engines. It has nothing (or very little) to do with the "driving experience".

hooklyn, if you're so good at 0-60 times, why dont you go work as a tester somewhere... oh yeah you said you were a tester right... i call BS. All you do is compare stats. Great, you must be an accountant or something. BTW if 0-60 times were that important, you bought the wrong car my friend. There are many cars that would destroy the GTI's time at the same price point.

Now back to the topic... Although I lament the loss of the n/a Inline 6, I'm happy to hear better fuel economy numbers and better performance at the same time; Usually one of them takes a hit. I am in the market for a sporty coupe, and I will be looking at the new Genesis coupe with the 2.0 GDI Turbo 4 as well as the Subaru BRZ to see how they drive.

hooklyn, do you know what 1-foot rollout is? Apparently, you don't.

reading > hooklyn

@ed124c: Actually, I'd wager the 1/4 mile is more relevant. Why? Trap time and 1/4 mile distance measures the power of the engine through a much wider range of gearing, and things such as launch technique are minimized. The 0-60 is almost not revelant in the real world at all.

blueguydotcom: 50-70 is fairly reasonable I think. That would be if you're already in top gear in your car, entering a long freeway on ramp, and you want to accelerate up to freeway cruise speeds without needing a downshift (and subsequent upshift). If you're going to measure useable engine torque, this is a good measurement too.

@cynic783

Car and Driver reports 5 - 60 times in their peformance tests which is a good tool to see what "realistic" acceleration would be without resorting to launch tricks or having to be a professional drag racer.

For the 2011 528 they are showing a 0-60 of 6.4 secs and a 5-60 of 7.0 secs. They don't have a test of the 2012 528 on their website, so apples to apples aren't available. However, to get an idea of the potential effect of turbo lag, on the 2011 WRX STi they show a 0-60 of 5.3 secs and a 5-60 of 6.6 secs.

As a stats geek, I've noticed over the years that this larger gap between 0-60 and 5-60 for smaller displacement boosted cars vs. larger displacement n.a. cars is pretty commonplace.

Wow, a lot of hatred towards ME for I/L's inability to properly test cars.

There is no reason why ANY real life tested figure should be less than the mfr. figure. I/L is frequently worse then even what the mfr. says...

@ narenji
I never said I am a car tester, just that I have tested cars for C&D before, and I have. I work in finance as an analyst. That would explain my emphasis on numbers. I am not interested in posting the worst case scenario but rather the best case scenario. I provide context.

Also, there are no cars in the GTI's price point that are BOTH faster AND get better gas mileage. My commute is 64 miles/day and live in Michigan. There are only 4 cars on the market that hit 60 in 6 seconds or less AND get 30mpg or better on the highway.;

GTI - 5.8 seconds to 60 AND 33mpg Hwy - From $23,xxx - FWD
Mustang V6 - 5.7 seconds to 60 AND 31mpg Hwy - From $22,xxx - RWD
335d - 5.9 seconds to 60 and 36mpg Hwy - From $44,xxx - RWD
M35 H - 5.3 seconds to 60 and 32mpg Hwy - From $53,xxx - RWD

@ sniperruff
They don't validate anything. All they show me is they don't know how to drive... C&D/MT/R&T/Automobile DO validate things.

@ wackford
I meant compared the other sources numbers of the exact same cars. You are right that mid 6 seconds to 60mph is adequate these days.

@ arumage
My PERSONAL experience with C&D and testing cars CAN be replicated by anyone. I have done it and I am far from a professional driver.

@ gtrguy2012
535i is the most popular 5-Series model actually. People who buy a stripper 128 or 328 buys them for the name. Or anything used of course. A $50k 2012 528i is not a car people do that with.

@ subytrojan
Not sure what the 1-foot roll-out has to do with a slow 0-60?? I/L frequently (actually always) gets the worst results in their objective performance testing.

Well hooklyn maybe it's time to read another website then. If you don't like CNN, venture over to FOX news.

@hooklyn

"Not sure what the 1-foot roll-out has to do with a slow 0-60??"

http://www.insideline.com/features/how-we-test-cars-and-trucks.html

See the section: "A Few Words About Rollout"

@ cynic783

Right, I am aware of what a roll-out is. That still doesn't provide any evidence as to why it is so slow. Even from a stop the 0-60 and 1/4 mile times are faster from literally every other source.

There is no way that a 0-60 time would be faster than that with a 1-foot roll-out. Only I/L seems to manage worse figures when running a more aggressive approach.

I know personally that C&D and other sources don't utilize a roll-out method in their figures. They are from a dead stop.

So i am still not sure how;
2011 528
I/L
7.1 and 6.7 w/ roll-out
C&D
6.4 w/ no roll-out

Apples-to-Apples would suggest that I/L is a full 0.7 seconds slower than C&D. that is 10%... Even slower than the mfr. number.

I understand that I/L must be VERy conservative on their launch but if that were the case then what is the merit in even posting anything at all. Just use the mfr. figures then considering those are conservative to begin with.

@sniperruff

There is no room for opinion in objectivity.

I don't come here for the opinions. I possess more than enough knowledge/context/experience to formulate that on my own. I come here for the objective info. I don't have the ability to test/drive all the cars I/L does. That is why I come here.

I don't focus much on subjectivity because to me 'if you can't prove it, it isn't true' or 'if you can't prove it, it can't be either right or wrong, just indifferent'.

I don't need I/L or anyone for that matter to tell me which seats are more comfortable or which infotainment system is easier to use. This varies literally with every person.
I do need I/L or any other source to tell me what the 0-60 or 1/4 mile or lateral acceleration or braking distance is. I have no way to test this.

@hooklyn: You still don't get it.

Per the other thread:

"Finally, IL returns pretty reasonable times on most of their cars and are reasonably consistent in their differentials between vehicles even if the average time is a little slower. They do most of their testing at California Speedway in Fontana, CA. This track is at 1100 ft of elevation and usually subject to cross winds, occasionally headwinds too. It also tends to be warmer than other parts of SoCal (basically high desert). Simply looking at the barometric pressure will tell you the effect of altitude alone. In this case, about a 3-4% drop in effective power vs. sea level. Add in the usually dusty track conditions and you don't have a recipe for optimal performance. Simply correcting for conditions would net out about a 0.3-0.4 sec improvement in 0-60 times here, about 0.2 seconds in 1/4 mile and about 1-1.5 mph in trap speed - and that doesn't include any corrections for headwinds. If you want to compare to Car and Driver times, you must use IL's 1 ft roll-out times and correct for conditions (two things C&D does and IL does not). That would net a C&D equivalent 0-60 time of about 9.4-9.5 seconds which is perfectly reasonable for an auto tranny (even a DCT setup) with the inability to launch hard and the additional inertial losses associated with the higher mass of a DCT."

And after C&D's DCT results were released?

"Just noticed that C&D tested the DCT Veloster. I predicted here that simple corrections for atmospheric conditions to IL's data, like C&D does, would net a 9.4 0-60 (with rollout) and a 17.2@82.7 mph. Note that this correction does not include a factor for the headwind that Edmunds reported.

So what were C&D's times?

0-60 - 9.1
1/4 - 17.1@83

Certainly close enough given vehicle to vehicle variation, driver weight differences, etc. Even moreso when you consider a headwind.

So people who are bitching about IL's test procedure, driving skill, etc. can enjoy some crow with a little humble pie for dessert."

As an analyst, you should try actually analyzing the numbers and understand how they were achieved.

@duck:

"blueguydotcom: 50-70 is fairly reasonable I think. That would be if you're already in top gear in your car, entering a long freeway on ramp, and you want to accelerate up to freeway cruise speeds without needing a downshift (and subsequent upshift). If you're going to measure useable engine torque, this is a good measurement too."

I'm sorry but there's nothing reasonable about a person getting on a freeway in top gear at 50. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. In fact that's selfish and irresponsible.

He is the guru of obtuse.

This is not a comment directed solely at BMW...but....I always wonder if the cars provided to the press are ringers. Is one of these cars in IL's long-term fleet?

It is just so damn important for BMW to prove this 4 cylinder is more than a match for the outgoing 6. Rarely does instrumented track testing involve an actual vehicle bought off the lot.

Again, it wouldn't be just BMW and I'm not a BMW owner so I don't have any vested opinion on the merits of either engine. Just the temptation to do a TINY remap of the ECU for certain PRESS cars seem too tempting for any business resolutely pass up in perpetuity....

Amusing how so many people pay so much attention to the meaningless acceleration numbers or the numbers of cylinders in the engine... No discussion whatsoever about the "Slalom" comment section of this "track test", which was (IMO) the most telling part. If the car doesn't behave "BMW-like" anymore (doesn't provide the same feel/feedback from steering wheel + suspension even in most "sport"-oriented setting), there's no need to buy such car anymore (regardless of numbers of cylinders or the type of the engine), you can just buy whatever else that has 4 wheels and gets the same acceleration/MPG numbers for much cheaper price...

"I have the same question about turbo lag. I would be curious what the 0-60 time is from a stomp-and-go with no pedal overlap"

Car and Driver November 2011 Issue, tested a Z428i with a 6 speed manual

0-60 5.6s, plenty fast

But look at the 5-60, a more real number, is 7.1s

In fact, they said:

"A gentler launch results in turbo lag, as seen in the 5-60 time."

There ya go. Same engine here.

@duck87

Just so you know, Fontana is not considered "High Desert". Fontana is in the San Gabriel Valley, along with the likes of Pasadena, Arcadia, Glendora, etc.

The "High Desert" is considered to be Palmdale and Lancaster, where the elevations is ~2,500+ and it actually snows. It does not snow in Fontana.

"I'm sorry but there's nothing reasonable about a person getting on a freeway in top gear at 50. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. In fact that's selfish and irresponsible. "

+1 on this one. Anyone too univolved to shift when speed and road conditions demand should drive an automatic or more deservingly, a CVT.

cardrvr, that is a devastating comment and precisely what I thought when reading the data. The engine isn't the issue with the 5 series, it's the handling that BMW has allowed to whither away that would concern me. Say what you want about the design of the previous 5 series, but it was still a very good handling vehicle. I can't imagine buying a BMW that isn't the class leader in performance, because in terms of design Jaguar, Audi, and even Infiniti offer more compelling reasons to buy.

BB

Is hooklyn some sort of new 1487?

So it seems.

CR, have you noticed that the times he posts follow 1487's old patterns EXACTLY?.....maybe he lives at 1486 in Overbrook PA....who knows. I am not sure what part of "we dont care about what you say" he does not get. Does he really think we would be impressed by anything he does or says?

Not sure BB, not sure.

Besides, I don`t think so.

He is a VAG fanboy, but is definitely not easy to talk to, like annoying.

That, I`m sure.

With regard to hooklyn, if any of you frequent VW Vortex Car Lounge, this is 06TornadoGTIPete, the multiple time banned poster who would pull all the same trick there he is pulling here.

Lies, misleading comments, moving the goalposts when his points are refuted. Changing the subject when his points are debunked.

The I4 is only .5-.6 seconds off the I6's pace. I don't think anyone will mind, given that a previous review mentioned the throttle lag was eliminated in the I4. Combined with slightly better MPG and a stronger torque curve, it's a net positive, and quite impressive for a 2.0L engine. Though it doesn't apply to the US, it's especially great for markets where there's stiff penalties for big engines. I'm sure this engine has plenty of headroom for additional tuning, like the VW 2.0T. I wouldn't be surprised if we see instant 40hp gains from chip tuning.

The dB numbers are interesting. The I4 is only louder under full throttle but it's noticeably quieter at idle. Regarding the sound, I'm sure if BMW felt the need to, they could always acoustically augment the engine sound as they do with the M5 or with intake piping into the firewall, to give it a bit more growl.

Looks like there's only 50 pounds of overall weight loss and it's a shame the shorter engine block doesn't significantly improve feedback.

@ Hooklyn

"There are only 4 cars on the market that hit 60 in 6 seconds or less AND get 30mpg or better on the highway."

Wrong. Again. I drove my '06 M/T Acura TL 5 hours yesterday from Ohio to TN and averaged 33MPG. Maybe technically it's not "on the market", but it was...from 2004! It also will dust a GTI, especially top end where it is also capable of such good mileage. My point is, (again, for the 834734837th time) Germany is not the only country who knows how to engineer a car!

And I am not a fan of a 4 banger in a BMW. The I6 is what some people like most about them. Not everyone likes BMW just b/c of the name; I'd buy a BMW because I remember wringing out a 96 328i as well as a 04 330ci, and my favorite part was the sound and feel of the engine. The other dynamics are great as well, but the engine is the most important part, at least to me.

I'm not going to comment about powertrains, since as has been noted, many buyers probably don't know or care anything about the engine so long as it isn't a complete slug - and the new turbo four seems to deliver. What I can't help but notice is the sizable amount of body roll here for the F10 5-series and the abandonment of handling prowess and sporting character in a move toward the middle.

"What I can't help but notice is the sizable amount of body roll here for the F10 5-series and the abandonment of handling prowess and sporting character in a move toward the middle."

I drove an F10 535i and after two minutes behind the wheel I thought, "Old man's car." Numb steering and woolly response were the primary culprits. I hope the M5 can exorcise the demons of dullness baked into the F10 platform.

I'd pick the M37 over this car, but I take issue with a comment posted earlier:

"gtrguy2012: Lets be honest, lots of people buy a 5 series just to say they drive a BMW."

Where I live, lots of people LEASE a - 3-series - just to say they drive a BMW.

The people who appreciate BMWs - and can afford them - buy the upmarket trims like the 535 and 335. If I were in the market for a BMW convertible, though, I'd look at the 328, because most convertibles' performance is compromised somewhat anyway.

@indifferently (& everyone else lol)

"With regard to hooklyn, if any of you frequent VW Vortex Car Lounge, this is 06TornadoGTIPete, the multiple time banned poster who would pull all the same trick there he is pulling here."

Just google 06TornadoGTIPete....Banned...banned...banned..every forum..I stopped looking after AcuraZine lmao. Been active in that forum ever since I bought one, and I can tell ya, it's pretty darn hard to get banned. We allow (R)bad language, (PG-13)name calling, all that jazz.

"Lies, misleading comments, moving the goalposts when his points are refuted. Changing the subject when his points are debunked."

So he IS 1487's long lost identical twin...

BMW...please start naming your models according to their engine size....calling a it a 528 was stupid when it was a 3.0 liter engine. Calling it a 528 when it's actually a 520 is even worse considering it's no longer a 6 cylinder. Although it has more power and is faster, one could think this is false advertising, as for 20 years a 528 was a BMW V6.

The skid pad scores are pathetic; there are far sportier cars out there for the money.

@ duck87

That is one case and at the time of the DCT Veloster I/L test discussion no results were had from anyone else. And slower is slower.

@ indifferently

Please identify ONE case where I have LIED, MISLEAD anyone, or 'MOVED THE GOAL POST'. I am just relaying information I see from any other various source. None of it are lies and nothing is designed to mislead. You just fail to interpret the info for yourself. ALL of the discussions I have are objective and the problem that people have with this is they fail to separate emotion from logic.

Albert Einstein - "Great minds will always face opposition from weaker minds"

If you can't prove it, it isn't true. All I discuss is proven truth. You will never hear me talk about many subjective criteria regarding a vehicles qualities. I can't argue opinion. I can and do argue fact.

@ AJT123

Your car is not for sale today and when it was the EPA ratings were less than 30mpg. I never said what I personally acheive in my GTi but rather what the EPA rating shows. If you can't prove it, it isn't true. EPA Ratings provide a consistent basis for comparison. I have averaged as high as 35.4mpg on my 32 mile (20 hwy/12 city) commute to work in my car...

The factuality of my statement stands, there are only 4 cars on the market that achieve BOTH 0-60 in 6 seconds or less AND get 30mpg Hwy or better.

Oh, and a 2006 TL is not faster than a 2010 GTI DSG. The Type-S from that generation is very similar to the GTI. 5.7 to 60 BUT 28mpg Hwy... That would NOT meet the criteria... Those are the exact same figures as a 2012 Passat V6 BTW... The NON-Type-S Model has NEVER been recorded professionally at under 6.1 seconds to 60 while having a 29mpg Hwy rating.

I have only been banned from ONE FORUM. I would just, and have, re-registered. I am still a member there. I was clearly unable to control the intake of the information so I have since just controlled its delivery... Like talking to children I suppose.

Oh, and I will be checking back for proof (because again, if you can't prove it, it isn't true) of my LIES and MISLEADING statements...

Good luck.

@ bodyblue

Obtuse... hahah. You should talk.

I live and breathe this stuff if you haven't figured that out. I am very acute and accurate and perceptive when it comes to this information. Chances are very high that if you disagree with something I say, it is because you don't know what I know. And as they say "you don't know what you don't know.

I can, and do, spend 6-8 hours or more per day on the internet researching these things. I actually take in as much information as possible and formulate a trend or average or commonality among the information and then represent it as such.

Most people will just see one or two pieces of information and run with it with little context as to how that information compares to others' information or little context as to what that information means and how it relates to others' of like. At best they will even just take the one or two key pieces of information and integrate it with what they previously thought. I look at data like this as if I were a clean slate.

I used to make judgements and determinations and formulate opinions on a very finite and often incomplete set of data. No more do I do that. The one thing I learned very early on in my adult life was to ask questions. And by doing so, I learn the answers.

If you disagree with this process then it is very evident why you disagree with my views as well.

Now lets talk about cars. That is all I come here to do and that is what I have been doing, until personal attacks are involved.

I/L got a 7.1 seconds to 60mph run form a 2011 528i.
C&D got a 6.4 seconds to 60mph run from a 2011 528i.

I/L got a 6.4 seconds to 60mph run from a 2012 528i.
BMW quotes a 6.2 seconds to 60mph run from a 2012 528i

That's all I said from the start and while most of you may not question this, I did just that.

And then took it a step further to extrapolate these results to assume that C&D could/should net a 5.7 second (0.7 seconds faster) or 5.8 second (10% faster) run to 60mph in a 2012 528i.

I am not seeing the issue with any of this. Maybe me saying that I/L is slow as usual (which is true) set some off... But I didn't make up the information that led me to that realization.

I KNEW I was right about VW boy being banned and then showing up here because he had nowhere else to go! ROFLMAO

"Chances are very high that if you disagree with something I say, it is because you don't know what I know."

Get out of here, kid......you are a joke. What we know is that people like you get tiring very quickly and you have already worn out your welcome. Even the German fanbois are embarrassed by you and run for the hills when you post. Coming on to a forum and telling everybody how smart you are and how dumb other people are if they dont agree with you is something only a very insecure person would do. Go away and get some help....you need it.

@ bodyblue

You have already proven your lack of context/knowledge regarding the information being discussed here. I know you know less when it comes to these things, though you may have more experience. The internet is your friend, use it, old man...

It is a generational thing. I, at 26, value what the internet offers in terms of a resource for knowledge and information and have immediate access to it. Most older folks, like you based on the way you talk, use 'experience' as a way of justifying your views and opinions.

You rest on your laurels. I rest on my extensive, concrete knowledge gained from various sources and my ability to attain it very quickly. What I lack in experience I make up in knowledge. What you lack in knowledge can never be made up by experience. That only leads to a lack of context.

I post the facts. You post your opinions. And when you can't argue based on knowledge and information (facts), you make it personal. I sheer sign of defeat.

"Although it has more power and is faster, one could think this is false advertising, as for 20 years a 528 was a BMW V6."

BMW only sells inline sixes, as God and Alex von Falkenhausen intended.

@bodyblue,

The more things change...

I think this has a lot to do with how each generation accumulates information. I, at 26, have had access to a computer and the internet for the majority of my life, most of it right in my house. I rely on this source to find information regarding anything.

Older generations didn't have this advantage and had to rely on books or word-of-mouth or experience to build knowledge. Many of them still do this today because that is what they are accustomed to.

Because of this difference, there is a a difference in the way the knowledge is interpreted and applied. That shows here when we have people from all sorts of backgrounds discussing like topics.

That is why you get the older generation relying on experience and 'wisdom' as a basis for their argument and the younger generation relying on information and fact as a basis for theirs.

I have heard many times "you are just a kid, what do you know?" The answer to that has always been "I know as much as the internet tells me, which is a lot more than you know"
AND
'With age comes wisdom' - I disagree as with age comes cynicism. The older you get the more set in your views/beliefs you become. You aren't as open as you once were and your perception and context of things change because of this. I, at 26, am an open book. I take it all in and can regurgitate it at a moments notice.

MOST people don't see things like I do. I pride myself on this. I don't see it as a flaw like many of you. I see it as an advantage. I am perceptive to a fault. I notice intricate details about things people didn't know where there. Regarding anything, not just cars. Some say I am OCD about it. If I don't understand something, I can't leave it alone until I do. I don't do anything in my life at 50% or 75%. It is 100% or nothing.

Most 'elders' just leave things be and try not to stir the pot and operate under this premise of 'if it aint broke don't fix it.'. This is a bigger problem then me doing the exact opposite where I will, theoretically, break something just to figure out how it works and put it back together and in doing say try to improve upon it.

Think about the advancements in society. Technology, Efficiency, Design, Healthcare, etc. Things are moving faster and faster and getting better and better and this is because of each subsequent generations ability to accumulate knowledge. The more readily available the information, the quicker, and more, people will learn and the faster they can take that idea and newly gained knowledge and apply it to something meaningful.

This is just the way it is and the way it has always been. Compare yourself to your parents generation in terms of knowledge and information. Compare your parents and your grand parents generation in terms of knowledge and information.

I have more information at my disposal on my Ipad or cell phone then did my parents at my age anywhere. Take all the books from every library in the country and you still won't have 10% of what I have on my 2.3x4.6" cell phone in my hand.

So when someone says "you are just a kid, what do you know", I can reply "A LOT..."

Carry on... I am sorry for letting others lead the conversation this way.

"@bodyblue,

The more things change... "

LOL no kidding...sigh.

"I, at 26, am an open book. I take it all in and can regurgitate it at a moments notice."

HUH? You are so set in your opinions that you cant see past your keyboard. You also make ASSUMPTIONS about my computer experience. That is also a sign on a young mind...assuming facts not in evidence. I started writing code for TRS-80s in high school and used computers from those to Apple lle from Commodore Amigas to the first IBM home units and have not stopped even today. I was using computers before you had pubes. I also have real world, hands on, experience that you simply dont have. Yes you can regurgitate stats compiled from lots of websites but how hard is that really? If you have to TELL us how smart you are (instead of us gleaning it from your posts...and trust me, we are not impressed with you at all) then there is something missing from your logic. You have a lot of info available to you but you dont have a clue as to how it applies to the real world. You have already blown your cover......we are not impressed. Why not find another site to try and impress?

hooklyn, C/D and all the other major publications use rollout and have always done so as far as I know.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-importance-of-rollout

If you are going to compare numbers, use the Edmunds/IL 0-60 *with 1-ft rollout* against the numbers others publish.

If you look at the names of some of the Edmunds/IL staff, you may recognize a few.

Chris Walton – tested cars for MT before taking his talents to Edmunds/IL
Josh Jacquot – tested cars for Sport Compact Car before taking his talents to Edmunds/IL
Mike Monticello – tested cars for Road & Track before taking his talents to Edmunds/IL

Thanks for playing and have a nice day.

Btw, using rollout is not a true 0-60. Therefore, the Edmunds/IL team gets it RIGHT.

@ bodyblue

My assumptions were based on your words. Your conversation. What you said led me to my conclusion. You talk as if you don't use computers often. You can't type well and even having the same access to the info I do, you don't possess it.

You are aging yourself again. Assuming that because you know how to program a computer means you know more about its capabilities? That is like you saying, which you have, "have you ever worked on a car?" as if that means I can't know how it functions, how it operates, or how to read a C&D article. That is an old school thought. You put more precedence on experience then you do information...regarding information. See the problem?

I don't need to know how to program a computer to understand its purpose/function.
I don't need to know how to replace a transmission to understand its purpose/function.

I never said it is hard to gather the information but fact is most don't. You didn't. I have regurgitated several facts regarding cars that you didn't know. That doesn't mean you can't go find them or interpret them yourself, you just don't.

That is the context that I have. I am not boasting or bragging about my ability to seek this information out. I am commenting about my desire to do so and the fact that I have.

Nothing in the information I have commented on is opinion.

C&D getting 0-60 in 6.4 seconds out a 2011 BMW 528i is just fact.

I am not saying you can't go find that or that you don't know how to go find it. But fact is, you didn't. And because you didn't seek this out, you didn't know that information.

"You don't know what you don't know" And in this, and other proven cases, you don't know. There are plenty of things I don't know, like how to program a computer. I just don't go around talking about programming computers.

Listen, I don't know how to program a computer, that doesn't I mean I can't learn. No harm no foul as I have no interest in programming computers.
No different then you not knowing the car facts/figures/specs that I know. That doesn't mean you can't learn them. You just choose not to.
BUT, the second I correct a piece of objective information by adding context, you can't fault me for it. That is a problem and something a lot of older and more cynical people do.

All of this info applies to the real world as far as I am concerned. If the information that I am just regurgitating didn't matter then its source would have no reason to report it. To someone who cares about cars, performance of said car is important. All I am fighting for is accuracy and context.
I don't use 0-60 figures as a way to measure how fast a given car is. I use it as a way to compare it to other cars. I don't care if a given car does 0-60 in 8 seconds or 4 seconds. I DO care how its peers perform the same feat. This allows me to base my opinion on the cars merits and demerits OBJECTIVELY. That is how this information applies to the real world FOR ME.

Also,
By you telling me you are 'not impressed' means that you are... Thank you.

justinlink, as a San Gabriel Valley resident (Monterey Park), I do not consider Fontana to be part of the SGV. I think it's considered part of the Inland Empire, but I could be wrong.

For those who want to know more about rollout, but haven't bothered going to Dan Edmunds' *excellent* How We Test Cars and Trucks article. Please see below.

http://www.insideline.com/features/how-we-test-cars-and-trucks.html

*A Few Words About Rollout*

The term "rollout" might not be familiar, but it comes from the drag strip. The arrangement of the timing beams for drag racing can be confusing, primarily because the 7-inch separation between the "pre-stage" and "stage" beams is not the source of rollout. The pre-stage beam, which has no effect on timing, is only there to help drivers creep up to the starting position. Rollout comes from the 1-foot separation (11.5 inches, actually) between the point where the leading edge of a front tire "rolls in" to the final staging beam — triggering the countdown to the green light that starts the race — and the point where the trailing edge of that tire "rolls out" of that same beam, the triggering event that starts the clock. A driver skilled at "shallow staging" can therefore get almost a free foot of untimed acceleration before the clock officially starts, effectively achieving a rolling-start velocity of 3-5 mph and shaving the 0.3 second it typically takes to cover that distance off his elapsed time (ET) in the process.

We believe the use of rollout for quarter-mile timed runs is appropriate, as this test is designed to represent an optimum drag strip run that a car owner can replicate at a drag strip. In the spirit of consistency, we also follow NHRA practice when calculating quarter-mile trap speed at the end of the run. So we publish the average speed over the final 66 feet of the quarter-mile run, even though our VBOX can tell us the instantaneous speed at the end of the 1,320-foot course, which is usually faster.

On the other hand, the use of rollout with 0-60 times is inappropriate in our view. For one, 0-60-mph acceleration is not a drag-racing convention. More important, it's called ZERO to 60 mph, not 3 or 4 mph to 60 mph, which is what you get when you apply rollout. While it is tempting to use rollout in order to make 0-60 acceleration look more impressive by 0.3 second, thereby hyping both the car's performance and the apparent skill of the test driver, we think it's cheating.

Nevertheless, some car magazines and some automobile manufacturers use rollout anyway — and fail to tell their customers. We've decided against this practice. We publish real 0-60 times instead. But in order to illuminate this issue and ensure we do justice to every car's real performance, we've begun publishing a clearly marked "with rollout" 0-60 time alongside the primary no-rollout 0-60 time so readers can see the effects of this bogus practice.

@ subytrojan

I have personally tested cars for C&D in the last 12 months and they do not use a roll-out method. Not saying that they haven't in the past but they don't anymore...

I can tell you that C&D brake torques cars equipped with automatics, drops the clutch with cars equipped with manual, and then uses launch control on cars equipped with automated manuals.

I can assure that regardless of the technique, it is from ZERO...

I've heard C/D has performed instrumented testing of cars occasionally on public roads instead of dedicated purpose-built facilities.

Maybe it would help if you gave us your name to look up your work. Do you write for C/D, too?

C/D does perform on public roads too. That is where we did my test.

I do not write for C&D. I just live local to their editorial offices and have volunteered on some things. Like this story;
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/computers-v-humans-launch-control-tested-feature

Hooklyn what you REFUSE to admit is that C/D and M/T both ADJUST their track times. That means that they CHANGE the actual achieved times to adjust for atmospheric conditions. If you put a C/D driver in the same car at the same place as a IL driver the CD driver will show a faster time. Now do you get it? For some one who claims to be so smart, you sure act like doorknob.

What are you trying to prove anyway? We dont think you are smart...we are not impressed by your opinions and we generally like this site and the people that write here. You come here and tell us that if we dont agree with you then we are wrong and unreasonable and that every other car mag is better. Why are you here? Oh thats right....you had your ass banned from everywhere else and there is nowhere else for you to go. Poor us.

@ bodyblue

THEY DO NOT DO THAT. The only time they adjust the times for conditions is if the test conditions are extreme. Extreme temps, extreme altitude, extreme etc.

Under normal conditions they do not adjust the times. I know people personally who work for the magazine and test the cars for a living. Not to mention my limited (but some) experience with the mag myself. If they test a car in Alaska, sure, they MAY adjust it. But since most of their test are conducted either out of their Ann Arbor office or their LA Office, no adjustments are required and thus none are done.

I have only been banned from Vortex and that was like a year ago... I have since rejoined and there are no issues. This is NOT the only site I go to. I even have my own blog.

I am not trying to prove anything. I am trying to correct misinformation with both fact and personal experience (something that should appease both of us). For some reason it is not sticking and people are arguing based on heresay and whatnot.

"I am trying to correct misinformation with both fact and personal experience (something that should appease both of us)"

Thats ok....we prefer to stay "mis-informed" Keep to your own blog....you might actually be respected there......you sure as hell are not here.

@ bodyblue

I am actually correcting misinformation by citing sources and personal experience. I am very confused. Now you are just being...wait for it...cynical. You are getting in your own way.

Someone says that C&D adjusts their information based on atmospheric conditions.
I say, from personal experience and contacts at the source, that they don't.

And you FAULT me for this??

Really??

You are beyond reproach I suppose.

It isn't about respect to me, it is about correctness. Nothing I have said here in all of this has been inaccurate in any way. If you feel it is, let me know what parts so I can address them.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/computers-v-humans-launch-control-tested-feature-car-and-driver-we-drop-the-hammer-page-2

I take it that is you pictured, hooklyn.

This only shows us that you helped with testing once. Is there anything else you can show us to let us know you are a trained professional?

I am not a trained professional. Never said I was either. That actually is part of the point. Even me, some 26 year old schmuck can replicate the performance results that C&D (the professionals) can.

You cry foul for them having freak performance performance figures that they adjust based on formulas that can't be replicated by consumers. I, as a consumer, can and have replicated their figures.

They specifically tell you in their tests how they got the results they did. Follow those and you will get their figures too.

There is no 'magic' that they perform to get these crazy freak figures. That was my point all along and my personal experience with the magazine should provide evidence of me knowing this.

That's all.

hooklyn, I just got confirmation from a C/D writer that they use rollout.[/case]

http://www.insideline.com/volkswagen/gti/2010/2010-volkswagen-gti-full-test-and-video.html

I chuckled at the fact that IL got pretty much the same times/numbers as you and C/D did, only they did it with a manual 6spd, versus your DSG equipped GTI. Granted, I have no idea what year your GTI happens to be and not enough time to "research" to find the telltales for your year of GTI shown in the C/D article.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/computers-v-humans-launch-control-tested-feature-car-and-driver-we-drop-the-hammer-page-2

By the way I am reminded of a very subjective post where you stated in Bill's MS3 RR article that
"The GTI weighs more than 250lbs LESS than the Speed3 and makes its power much more efficiently. 263hp in a 3,300lb FWD car is too much. 200hp in a 3,025lb FWD car is just right."

Yep, nothing subjective in that quote from the supposed more "efficient" power in the GTI to your opinion that somehow less hp makes the GTI superior. I mean I guess the GTI traps at a blisteringly perfect 95 mph and that the Ford Focus RS must be super ridiculously stupid of a car to try and have over 300hp in a front drive car.

Sad thing is I bet you are a decent guy in person, but on the internet you are so unbelievably malignant.

P.S. With all of your internet "research", which is actually just haphazard needle in a haystack searching as most real researchers would baulk at your attempt to call your perusal of the internet as research, just a friendly reminder not to believe everything you read, especially on internet websites where anyone can author anything.

If you want to prove your truly intelligent and not just a stubborn kid with a keyboard, argue on behalf of InsideLine and prove that you have the smarts to prove both sides of your argument, because in reality where gray exists not everything is as black and white as it seems to be in your world.

By the way "roll out" does not mean they actually "rolled out"...they are still starting from a stop and thus the reason why you must think C/D puts out numbers that are not roll out. By the way, for a married guy I am surprised you find it so hard to admit when you are wrong.

Okay Petey I'll let people here know what kind of bs troller you are.

First there was the thread talking about the then new M35h where you argued against the point that the M35h was the fastest and quickest 6cyl midsize luxury sedan. After trying as hard as you could to find evidence to support your argument that it wasn't, including cherry picking tests which showed the 535 with a quick 0-60 and combining it with other tests with a faster 1/4 mile time. You then changed the argument to the fact that it wasn't that much more fuel efficient than the competition. Of course again you cherry picked the most fuel efficient competitor and ignored other models that were less efficient.

Then we pointed out that it was quicker, more efficient, and cheaper than the 535. You then came up with the asinine argument that an Infiniti had no price advantage over a comparably equipped 535. Hilarious!!

Plus for anyone else reading ole Peter Crowder admitted he buys his cars based not on how much he likes it, but by what others will think of it. Feel free to google him on vortex car lounge and read his posts. They're very entertaining.

Last Pete don't lie about your behavior. You came back to vortex and were banned again. Or do you not remember the Buick regal thread that got you rebanned?

@ Hooklyn-

"Your car is not for sale today and when it was the EPA ratings were less than 30mpg. I never said what I personally acheive in my GTi but rather what the EPA rating shows. If you can't prove it, it isn't true."

Right, I pointed that out as well. I was trying to make a point that my car, which is an 8 year old design, surpasses the 30MPG mark. So what you're hootin and hollerin' about is really nothing to get excited about, nor a big deal. I would gladly "prove it", with my MPG readout were this forum capable of picture posts. And before you say anything, I did it all out by hand too, just to be certain, and it checked out. I'll mail you a copy.

"Oh, and a 2006 TL is not faster than a 2010 GTI DSG. "

Wrong. Again. My car (which gets 30+MPG HWY) will also hit 60 in well under 6 seconds. IDK where you got 6.1 from, but I'm going by the facts from your holy grail, Car and Driver, where they tested a TL A-spec (identical to mine) at 5.6. The slowest I've seen is 5.9 for a manual 3G TL, and I don't care how fancy the DSG is, I'll keep my Honda 6 speed manual tranny, thanks. See which one breaks down first. Get your fancy launch; I'll be passing you by 30. Wanna go from a 60MPH roll and see who gets to 155 first? "My car my car my car my car my car......" Gets pretty annoying, doesn't it? It was really funny to see posts that are identical to your BS on here everywhere else where you were banned...."Well your car sucks BUT MY GTI..."

Blah, blah.

And it's really too bad that you act like such a DB, because I think it's really neat that you were in C&D. It's a pity, because there are FAR more objective people who can bring WORLDS more to the table than you. Whatever credibility you THOUGHT that gave you is completely nullified based on your ignorance and BS. I'm sure C&D would vomit if they saw how bad you're making them look.

BTW you can't even crack a 15 second 1/4 mile w/o your launch control on? Fast!

If you need proof that C&D applies weather correction as well:

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/how-does-c-d-test-cars-acceleration-and-braking-page-2

What's scary to me is that they say they apply a "proprietary" correction. I don't know if that's just an editorial choice of words to make it sound more impressive, but most of us just use a standard SAE correction or the NHRA numbers.

I also noticed that their Michigan test facility is at 900 ft of elevation, give or take. This is only a couple hundred feet lower than where IL tests their cars usually. That means that on average they're going to reduce their measured times unless the test day is substantially below 60 F.

So, in summary, for those who are a little dense or prone to simple regurgitation:

-C&D uses rollout. Whether you think that's right or wrong, if you're going to compare their times to IL's, you must use the 1-ft rollout times from IL.

-C&D does weather correction. IL does not. You can argue which is more appropriate (I prefer corrections myself), but if you want to compare C&D and IL, then you should correct IL's times. Use their provided weather conditions and apply one of the available NHRA weather correction calculators on the internet to get a reasonable number for comparison.

A final note on corrections. Turbocharged cars generally throw off the correction factor because they make their own atmosphere, so to speak. A modern turbo car generally has enough excess capacity in the turbo to compensate for altitude changes of several thousand feet (Porsche claimed that the last 911 turbo could still make full boost up to 7000 ft of elevation). Thus, applying a correction factor for elevation to a turbo car generally results in an unreasonably fast time. NHRA, for example, halves the correction factor for turbocharged cars.

There you go. One more time, for those with poor reading comprehension, before you go criticizing IL's track times, understand what _exactly_ you're criticizing. Saves you from looking like a complete retard.

BTW, to back up subytrojan's editorial shout out, here's a post from a C&D staffer on rollout:

http://backfires.caranddriver.com/forums/124/posts/33676-acceleration-testing-methodology

@hooklyn

In light of this thread I am sure C/D are regretting ever asking you to do anything for them.......

.....if they even did in the first place! LOL.

Go smoke a bowl in your basement, hows about that.

-Rod

Buncha whiners.

@church123

Nicely done. Game, set, match.

I for one learned a lot about turbos, weather correction, roll-out. Thanks for all of that.

@Mike Magrath

Can you please fix the typo I mentioned on this article for posterity.

@Dan Edmunds

Can we get 5-60 so we can subtract out the turbo lag?

With the new 4 cylinder BMWs, I no longer see the 328i and 528i as cars for those who don't truly appreciate Bimmer performance and are only buying the car for the badge. With the slowest 5 series being almost as fast as the e39 540i, there really isn't that much of a need for more power (especially with the increased fuel economy - good job BMW). However, it's not to say that a 335i and a 535i/550i wouldn't be more fun to drive, because I'm sure they are. It is just not always worth the extra money for some people.

I sort of turned against BMW after they came out with the 2002 7 series because I didn't see them going in any good direction, and although the new 5 series is softer, I'd like to applaud them for coming out with a torquey, fast, and economical 4 cylinder turbo.

With the new 4 cylinder BMWs, I no longer see the 328i and 528i as cars for those who don't truly appreciate Bimmer performance and are only buying the car for the badge. With the slowest 5 series being almost as fast as the e39 540i, there really isn't that much of a need for more power (especially with the increased fuel economy - good job BMW). However, it's not to say that a 335i and a 535i/550i wouldn't be more fun to drive, because I'm sure they are. It is just not always worth the extra money for some people.

I sort of turned against BMW after they came out with the 2002 7 series because I didn't see them going in any good direction, and although the new 5 series is softer, I'd like to applaud them for coming out with a torquey, fast, and economical 4 cylinder turbo.

This test was a "snapshot", lets see how well these turbo-4's perform after they get 100K on the clock!
One of the great strengths of the inline, naturally aspirated, six is their durability.

Why is the old car so much faster in the slalom? I see different drivers listed. Is it just driver, or something else?

Now that they've put in a 4 cylinder, where is the real world fuel comparison test? I thought that was part of what this change was about.

I am writing this as I got deregistered from www.autocar.co.uk, which incidentally no longer accepts new registrations. Figure that.

@blackdynamite1, you do realize this is a 3,900+ pound luxury car with a 2.0 liter turbo engine? It still bests a 3.0 liter for under $50,000, so a 6.4 (old porsche 911 996 territory) is not so bad. If someone can design a better car for the market then I will consider it. Easy to criticize when you are'nt being paid to design products for the general public huh?