On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 9:58:32 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2017-07-25 2:20 PM, -hh wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 12:21:57 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> >> On 2017-07-23 6:55 AM, -hh wrote:
> >>> Had a coworker with a Cherokee .. being a pax was quite unpleasant,
> >>> although some of that may have also been the driver. Can't recall
> >>> any recent time in a Wrangler, but their NVH when I'm passing them
> >>> doesn't make it at all appealing to me.
> >>>
> >>> Hope Alan enjoys the 1-Series. Can't recall if that model/year had
> >>> run flats (reason why I skipped this marquee a few years ago).
> >>
> >> It did have when it was new (it's a 2012), but they've since been
> >> replaced with conventional tires.
> >
> > Apparently, runflats have gotten a bit "less bad", but on a
> > fundamental engineering perspective, they must always be worse
> > because they increase unsprung mass. Overall, I find it more than
> > just a bit disappointing that 'Ultimate Driving Machine' BMW adopted
> > them at all.
>
> Well... ...there wasn't really room in the 135i for a full-size spare,
> so they chose to offer runflats or a tire inflation kit.
Unfortunately, while I understand what you're saying about refitting,
from a vehicle designer standpoint, it is an insultingly bogus argument.
For example, even Honda's first generation Civic had a full size spare,
and that vehicle was only 140" long (vs 172" = 32" shorter) and 59.25"
wide (vs 68.8" = 9" narrower) than an 135i.
There isn't a spare today (even a compact) because BMW's designers,
despite having a larger envelope to work with, decided that they
would instead allocate the spare tire space claim to something else.
Since they (BMW) doesn't have to pay for stuff like this:
"Huge pothole reportedly flattens 20 tires on Route 80"
<
http://www.nj.com/morris/index.ssf/2017/07/route_80_pothole_reportedly_flattening_tires_and_c.html>
(an extreme example to be sure, but nevertheless a contemporary
issue that's been exasperated by runflats & lower profile tires)
> >>> On the higher end Japanese rides, a former boss has a Lexus that
> >>> we did some road trips in. Was my first real experience with HID
> >>> headlights- I was sold on them, got them on my current ride and
> >>> expect that they'll be on the next Audi the Mrs buys.
> >>
> >> The 135 has them, along with active steering of the lights. It's great.
> >> :-)
> >
> > Enjoy!
> >
> > In the meantime, this URL came through on my newsfeed today, which
> > is interestingly topical ... in case anyone is interested in picking
> > up a "Supersized GTI":
> >
> > <
http://autoweek.com/article/wait-theres-more/who-wins-vir-1987-porsche-944-turbo-or-2017-macan-gts>
>
> I'm not really surprised.
Considering that the Macan Turbo has similarly been put up against
a brand new M3, I'm not all that surprised either.
> Horsepower: it still wins a lot of arguments.
> :-)
True enough, although it doesn't quite seem so cut & dry to me:
it appears that the extra power (despite extra mass) did make
the Macan faster on the straights, and despite the higher CG,
the modern tech in suspension, brakes & tires were able to
allow the Macan to not be slower than the 944T in the twists,
so the net lap times overall came down to the time gained on
the straights with minimal losses in the corners. This would
also illustrate that the course layout played a big part.
I also noticed the driver mentioned (approx. at 13:00) the Macan's
greater ease-of-spirited handling, which I'd say is an attribute
of the 3 decades difference in vintages/technology.
-hh