Volkswagen Mark IV Forum banner
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
666 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just had an "off the lights" blast against an X5.

Boy are they quick!

I leapt off the line quicker and was a car length ahead, then he gained so I was only a bonnet length ahead.

We seemed to stay like this for ages, no one gaining an inch then a combination of my bottle going (this was a narrow road with a speed limit) and possibly the mighty X5's V8, he pulled ahead as I turned off.

Closest "race" I've had and I think the Golf did rather well (EVO 0-60 for X5 is 6.1s) [:D]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
666 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
It's a 4.8 litre V8 with 360bhp and 369 lb/ft of torque. Exclusive to the X5 as far as I know.

Makes a hell of a noise!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
446 Posts
is it the same engine as is in the M3? don't know much about bms

Nah dubzter, the M3 has a 3.2 straight 6 block

I had a little high speed race with one of these X5's back in August, I was in a standard 225 TT, the X5 seemed to run out of legs at around 130, I could've passed easy but she wouldn't let me past and we ran out of road. [:eek:)]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
798 Posts
I had a little high speed race with one of these X5's back in August, I was in a standard 225 TT, the X5 seemed to run out of legs at around 130, I could've passed easy but she wouldn't let me past and we ran out of road

Must have been the Diesel [:)]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,875 Posts
The X5 is bound to unleash whoopass!!! Capacity unfortunately can't really be bettered for all through grunt can it. The x5 is quite sporty anyway.... for a chicken chaser!!!

Doubt very much that the TT would come close really.. to the V8 version anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
565 Posts
Quote: posted by sutherlandm on 04/12/2004 16:23:23

Just had an "off the lights" blast against an X5.

Boy are they quick!

I leapt off the line quicker and was a car length ahead, then he gained so I was only a bonnet length ahead.

We seemed to stay like this for ages, no one gaining an inch then a combination of my bottle going (this was a narrow road with a speed limit) and possibly the mighty X5's V8, he pulled ahead as I turned off.

Closest "race" I've had and I think the Golf did rather well (EVO 0-60 for X5 is 6.1s) [:D]

nice!

JOOI..your '32 remapped?

got to have stuck in his gullet tho'... +twice the price an' all that... not to mention the male chicken enlargement that apparently comes free with the sale of a beemer (or so they all think...)...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
666 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Bob - Only the 6463 update.

I could sense his frustration as his bellowing behemoth just couldn't get ahead.

Checked power/weight and it's 162bhp/tonne.

Reckon mine must be kicking out over 250bhp so that makes for a slightly better power/weight ratio but nowhere near the torque.

Wasn't a macho thing, just interesting to see such a huge thing go so fast!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
565 Posts
Quote: posted by sutherlandm on 04/12/2004 19:42:13

Bob - Only the 6463 update.

I could sense his frustration as his bellowing behemoth just couldn't get ahead.

Checked power/weight and it's 162bhp/tonne.

Reckon mine must be kicking out over 250bhp so that makes for a slightly better power/weight ratio but nowhere near the torque.

Wasn't a macho thing, just interesting to see such a huge thing go so fast!

I know what you mean, but every beemer driver i've seen is up for it! It's always good to have a run against something you expect is faster.. so nice all the same!

My mate's 330 bhp 'H' plate Porsche 944 T (with a few mods) has had a few laughs with some M3's (always up for it! - there's a sh!tty old porker..). His comment was that the 'aerodynamicy' doesn't really become apparent until about 140!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
336 Posts
Quote: posted by sutherlandm on 04/12/2004 19:42:13

Bob - Only the 6463 update.

I could sense his frustration as his bellowing behemoth just couldn't get ahead.

Checked power/weight and it's 162bhp/tonne.

Reckon mine must be kicking out over 250bhp so that makes for a slightly better power/weight ratio but nowhere near the torque.

Wasn't a macho thing, just interesting to see such a huge thing go so fast!

Time for a remap kiddo.

The X5(4.8iS) is a very capable machine but its in vogue now to have large aka (2 ton) vehicles acting like sporty cars. Your description of the blat sounds about right although you should have expected a little better initially off the mark simply because of the lesser weight. Once the V8 gets ino its stride then it should pull you back but the faster you go the better it would be for you given the dimensons etc of the X5. Sounds like fun though[;)]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
666 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Doc - Those sort of things don't worry me.

My reaction isn't "time for more power", more a case of respect for such a massive machine moving so quickly.

Of course if there had been twisties involved, it would have been a very different "race" altogether.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
336 Posts
Neither me, I was more thinking about making the R a more complete car, which is my opinion thats what the remap does.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
336 Posts
Quote: posted by sutherlandm on 06/12/2004 08:45:58

Many seem disappointed with their remaps.

The 6364 is good enough for me!

Funny that. I have seen you mention this many times before but I have to say I am very, very sceptical about the purported power increase with just the VW software update. RR figures depending on where and what RR they were provided on can be misleading.

Interestingly, I had the 6364 update and ran the car for approx 1 month before my remap and I would say it certainly improved the responsiveness and overall drive-ability of the car, basically it felt faster, but the faster bit being a very subjective perception. After the remap (AmD) which incorporates the new VW code the car was without question faster across the rev range. For each stage of the cars alterations I have the RR numbers performed on the same RR and hey presto only with the remap (rather than VW update) were the figures (bhp/torque) consistently increased. AND yes I have read the other threads

But hey what the hell you're happy and that's all that matters[;)]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
446 Posts
Must have been the Diesel

Nah was the V8, trust..

What he said......... a V8 running out of puff up top? Esp not against the four pot of the TT???

They may have a v8 engine fast on paper blah blah, but they have the areodynamics of a brick and the handling must be like a barge on wagon wheels. Maybe she bottled it and didn't want to push it anymore? Who Knows?

And like you rightly said sutherlandm "Of course if there had been twisties involved, it would have been a very different "race" altogether."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
666 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Doc - The AMD remap appears to work well, but the APR one seems dodgy.

Whatever the 6463 rempa does powerwise (or not) it works VERY well and it's free!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,132 Posts
I think Tabs would say that was the other way round with the APR code being better than AMD. Just look at his times at Bruntingthorpe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
666 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Okay I'll shut up.

Whatever I say, it'll upset someone!

Needless to say those who paid naff all and got the 6364 update seem to have a big engine improvement for no money which is nice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,132 Posts
I'm not saying you're wrong just it's not so clear cut as one is better than the other. Obviously some cars have mapped well with one and others with the other which gives different performance on the road.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top