No more b***ocks about weight balance

[Yaninnya]

I found these informations in german Auto Motor und Sport magazine so very respectable source:
Model - weight balance - weight - month/year of the test
316i (M40) - 52.0/48.0 % - 1122 kg - (09/1988)
318i (M10) - 52.7/47.3 % - 1028 kg - (03/1983)
318i (M40) - 52.4/47.6 % - 1093 kg - (10/1987)
318i Cabrio (M40) - 49.6/50.4 % - 1269 kg - (08/1991)
318iS - 53.3/46.7 % - 1132 kg - (08/1989)
320i - 54.8/45.2 % - 1084 kg - (01/1983)
320i Baur - 51.4/48.6 % - 1148 kg - (06/1983)
320iS - 52.1/47.9 % - 1218 kg - (02/1989)
323i (139 PS) - 54.0/46.0 % - 1173 kg - (02/1983)
325i - 52.4/47.6 % - 1209 kg - (10/1985)
325i Touring - 51.0/49.0 % - 1297 kg - (09/1988)
M3 - 52.2/47.8 % - 1237 kg - (07/1986)
324d - 53.0/47.0 % - 1230 kg - (09/1985)
Thats their own measurements from tests, not BMW data.
Jan

[oakey]

So the 325i is more evenly balanced than the IS?!

[Theo]

Oh dear, there will be tears before bedtime from the M42 lovers!

'But if I move the battery into the boot'.....

[DanThe]

Does it mention fuel load?

[treeseries]

i dont see the 325is there? i bet with all that kit it weighs more

[fuzzy]

my touring was weighed at 52/48% over the axles after the conversion. good enough for me

[aceraf]

325i Touring - 51.0/49.0 % - 1297 kg - (09/1988)

[Jon_Bmw]

10 Page marathon coming up

Agreen is going to have a tantrum I am certain of it.

[d6dph]

Now now Jon.

[Yaninnya]

Does it mention fuel load?

No, but as I know them, it was measured compliant to german DIN norm (which means full tank).
Jan

[johnl320]

I see the 320i is consistant with other performancce data (ie. crap)

john

[tylerma]

so the 318i cab is nearest to 50/50 weight balance then

or am I reading it wrong

[johnl320]

so the 318i cab is nearest to 50/50 weight balance then

or am I reading it wrong

Reading it right as far as I can tell

[1an]

how can a 318 weigh less that a 316 its exactly the same engine.

and a 325 is apparently over 100kg heavyer than a 320?

[Gortour]

And I always thought the Touring was more balanced due to the extra weight at the back end... ?

[Theo]

how can a 318 weigh less that a 316 its exactly the same engine.

and a 325 is apparently over 100kg heavyer than a 320?

I wondered the same regarding the 316i and 318i.

More understandable with the 325i though - bigger diff, bigger gearbox, ABS setup, oil cooler, bigger brakes, bigger front legs/shocks, rear ARB sure there are more factors.

[1an]

but a 320 aaparently weighss less that an m40 316 aswell!!!

[Theo]

Perhaps the 316i was a 4dr and the 320i a 2dr?

[1an]

theyve gotta make 320 owners feel better about their cars somehow

[johnl320]

But look at the year they tested the 320i, 1983. Probably a poverty spec so no power steering, electric windows. Could also have been a two door and the 4 pots four doors.
With regards to the 325/320 weight difference, 100kgs is a bit excessive but take into account smaller diff, no rear ARB, smaller front struts, battery in boot kit ( have you felt the weight or had to post one?), oil cooler. All starts to add up, but not to 100kgs.

Too many variables on the spec sheet to be an accurate test IMO

john

[JGG1]

325i Touring - 51.0/49.0 % - 1297 kg - (09/1988)

[1an]

But look at the year they tested the 320i, 1983. Probably a poverty spec so no power steering, electric windows. Could also have been a two door and the 4 pots four doors.
With regards to the 325/320 weight difference, 100kgs is a bit excessive but take into account smaller diff, no rear ARB, smaller front struts, battery in boot kit ( have you felt the weight or had to post one?), oil cooler. All starts to add up, but not to 100kgs.

Too many variables on the spec sheet to be an accurate test IMO

john

when you put it like that it makes sense i suppose but a tad excessive.

[johnl320]

325i Touring - 51.0/49.0 % - 1297 kg - (09/1988)

But thats only because its a half arsed attempt at an estate car with loads of extra crap dumped over the back axle.

[Rosc0PColtrane]

And I always thought the Touring was more balanced due to the extra weight at the back end... ?

No, you fecked that up by sitting in one and eating burgers. It threw every touring on the planet out of kilter, such was the magnitude of your atrocity!

[Speedtouch]

Good to hear that a 325i is lighter than an M3

[snoops]

But look at the year they tested the 320i, 1983. Probably a poverty spec so no power steering, electric windows. Could also have been a two door and the 4 pots four doors.
With regards to the 325/320 weight difference, 100kgs is a bit excessive but take into account smaller diff, no rear ARB, smaller front struts, battery in boot kit ( have you felt the weight or had to post one?), oil cooler. All starts to add up, but not to 100kgs.

Too many variables on the spec sheet to be an accurate test IMO

john

iirc there were only 2 doors available in 1983 and most didn't have ABS or PAS

[E30BeemerLad]

I found these informations in german Auto Motor und Sport magazine so very respectable source:
Model - weight balance - weight - month/year of the test
316i (M40) - 52.0/48.0 % - 1122 kg - (09/1988)
318i (M10) - 52.7/47.3 % - 1028 kg - (03/1983)
318i (M40) - 52.4/47.6 % - 1093 kg - (10/1987)
318i Cabrio (M40) - 49.6/50.4 % - 1269 kg - (08/1991)
318iS - 53.3/46.7 % - 1132 kg - (08/1989)
320i - 54.8/45.2 % - 1084 kg - (01/1983)
320i Baur - 51.4/48.6 % - 1148 kg - (06/1983)
320iS - 52.1/47.9 % - 1218 kg - (02/1989)
323i (139 PS) - 54.0/46.0 % - 1173 kg - (02/1983)
325i - 52.4/47.6 % - 1209 kg - (10/1985)
325i Touring - 51.0/49.0 % - 1297 kg - (09/1988)
M3 - 52.2/47.8 % - 1237 kg - (07/1986)
324d - 53.0/47.0 % - 1230 kg - (09/1985)
Thats their own measurements from tests, not BMW data.
Jan

so an M40 touring would be about 50/50 then, noting one isn't listed there

[johnl320]

But look at the year they tested the 320i, 1983. Probably a poverty spec so no power steering, electric windows. Could also have been a two door and the 4 pots four doors.
With regards to the 325/320 weight difference, 100kgs is a bit excessive but take into account smaller diff, no rear ARB, smaller front struts, battery in boot kit ( have you felt the weight or had to post one?), oil cooler. All starts to add up, but not to 100kgs.

Too many variables on the spec sheet to be an accurate test IMO

john

iirc there were only 2 doors available in 1983 and most didn't have ABS or PAS

Isn't that what i said??

[march109]

hahaha no more boll*cks my hairy arse

Firstly is the front/rear or rear/front I kno which s more likely but as it doesn't specify hardly scientific.

Secondly what optional extras were fitted? if any? option spec of tested cars could be wildly different.

And Finally the 325i Sport has the battery which weight in excess of 10kg in the rear, (given the figures for the 325i 15kg = (100/1209)*10 = 0.83% does that make the sport closer to 51.57/48.43? what about the extra cables? how much fuel ere these cars loaded with? what interior did they have?

[Theo]

Firstly is the front/rear or rear/front I kno which s more likely but as it doesn't specify hardly scientific.

You'd have to be a complete penis to think all e30's have more weight over the rear wheels than the front.

BTW, all 2 and 4 door 325i saloons had the battery in the boot.

[march109]

My point incase you missed it, you can hardly call it scientific proof when the conditions for the experiment used to define and calculate the data has not been specified. We don't even know if the same measurement device as used on each vehicle, now you post a dyno graph and you'll get the 'that car would make less power on a different dyno' brigade jump right on you.

The specifications of the vehicles, fuel load, even number of doors on some results are unknown to us.

You have me on the battery issue, since I've never had anything other than a sport and an is. However I have a lard arse thats probably even worse for mass (which is the correct term) distribution!

[Theo]

I didn't miss any of your points (all of which have already been mentioned in this thread)

Your initial point is undeniably stupid, the German writers probably presume that their readership have a grain of common sense...

[Yaninnya]

for mass (which is the correct term) distribution!

Sorry mate, but english is not my first language. I'm doing my best.
Jan
P.S. I can translate the specification of tested cars, but it will take some time.

[march109]

no worries dude I understand that, mass is just the correct scientific term for weight, I was being scientifically pedantic a fact missed by some who do speak english as a first language so don't worry.

Quick Wiki explanation:
In modern scientific usage, weight and mass are fundamentally different quantities: mass is an intrinsic property of matter, whereas weight is a force that results from the action of gravity on matter: it measures how strongly gravity pulls on that matter.

It is important in this distinction because we are calculating mass balance and therefore need to locate the center of gravity of an object (although if the gravitation field is uniform, the center of gravity will coincide with the center of mass).

And mass is in fact measured in Kg, weight is a function of mass under earths (or another) gravitational force and is therefore measured in N (newtons) or Kg m/s^-1.

But your usage of the ord weight was indeed correct in common english language if not 100% scientifically correct.

[suchy]

And I always thought the Touring was more balanced due to the extra weight at the back end... ?

What? You mean a tow bar?