# 330 ci performance package oem wheels specs



## HW (Dec 24, 2001)

i have just a regular 323ci and swapped in 17" wheels that are 7lbs lighter per corner for a total savings of 28lbs unsprung weight. i can tell you that it was like driving a different car. the accel response was better, suspension felt better and braking was more responsive. besides, you can't compare old m3 to new 3er. you should slap on either lighter wheels or heavier wheels whichever you have access to a feel the difference. for me the lighter wheels was the cheapest in getting improved performance.

http://www.analyticcycling.com/WheelsConcept_Disc.html
http://www.nissanperformancemag.com/march04/project200sx/
http://www.tirerack.com/wheels/tech/road_wheel_weights.html
http://forums.audiworld.com/s4/msgs/1032814.phtml



adc said:


> BS.
> 
> How do you define those performance benefits? The official BMW literature clearly lists the ZHP as faster than a "regular" 330. Everything else is conjecture, speculation, and extrapolation on the strength of 1 sample. :wahwah:
> 
> ...


----------



## adc (Apr 1, 2003)

HW said:


> i have just a regular 323ci and swapped in 17" wheels that are 7lbs lighter per corner for a total savings of 28lbs unsprung weight. i can tell you that it was like driving a different car. the accel response was better, suspension felt better and braking was more responsive. besides, you can't compare old m3 to new 3er. you should slap on either lighter wheels or heavier wheels whichever you have access to a feel the difference. for me the lighter wheels was the cheapest in getting improved performance.
> 
> http://www.analyticcycling.com/WheelsConcept_Disc.html
> http://www.nissanperformancemag.com/march04/project200sx/
> ...


Yes, yes, I maintain my opinion: :wahwah:.

The only article that tries to put performance numbers in print seems to be the one on Audiworld. They seem to think 10lbs wheel weight reduction equates to some 65-80lbs general vehicle weight reduction. The rest is just subjective, feel, conjecture etc.

With either article, there is no instrumented test that shows ANY performance increase. At all.

You know why? Because there isn't any, not if you drop 4-5lbs in wheel weight as was discussed above somewhere. Any gain from reduced weight is likely offset by the reduced contact patch (grip) and increased tirewall flex (lean). Conjecture, you say? Of course, I answer, but that's what we're dealing with here anyway...

"Show me the money!"

adc
03 330 ZHP


----------



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

adc said:


> BS.
> 
> How do you define those performance benefits? The official BMW literature clearly lists the ZHP as faster than a "regular" 330. Everything else is conjecture, speculation, and extrapolation on the strength of 1 sample. :wahwah:


I would suggest taking BMW's performance figures with a pinch of salt. Here is an example:

An absolutely base 316i on 6.5x15, 14lb factory alloys, 195mm wide tyres, no bodykit and a kerb weight of less than 1,300 kg is given a 0-62 mph of around 10.6 sec. A fully-loaded 316i Sport with 18" wheels, very wide (255mm) rear tyres, and a full complement of equipment is quoted by BMW as having exactly the same acceleration figures. The moderate static weight penalty of the extra equipment and bodykit is joined by the extra rolling resistance of the bigger tyres, and the dynamic weight generated by the larger wheels and tyres (your trade-off for good looks and more grip). So I would not, in an isolated case, go just on the basis of BMW's performance figures (which, like its fuel economy claims, are often inaccurate).

Personally I would think the slightly shorter diff of the 330x PP would make up any difference created by the extra lbs at each corner; the 10 hp difference isn't much to go on since we don't know for sure what the power curve looks like (it might be identical to the regular 330i's except for a little peak at 6,000 rpm, or it might be 10 hp stronger all the way along, or it might best the 330i by *more* than 10 hp at any other point or points in the rev range).


----------



## Kaz (Dec 21, 2001)

I maintain that wheel/tire weight makes a HUGE difference. It may not translate on paper, but you sure as hell will feel it.

On my last car, I went from 16" BBS RS (super light) to 17" BBS RX (super heavy) and the change was massive. Then, before I sold the car, I put the 15" stocks (light) back on and sure, the tires had no grip but the car was way more responsive in every sense.

I have a friend with E30M3s and 4 or 5 different sets of wheels for them. The way the car feels with the lightest (stock 15s) vs heaviest (E39 OE 17" 2pc) is like night and day.

I do not buy wheels or tires without taking weight into heavy consideration. Period.


----------



## HW (Dec 24, 2001)

adc said:


> Yes, yes, I maintain my opinion: :wahwah:.
> 
> The only article that tries to put performance numbers in print seems to be the one on Audiworld. They seem to think 10lbs wheel weight reduction equates to some 65-80lbs general vehicle weight reduction. The rest is just subjective, feel, conjecture etc.
> 
> ...


you don't necessarily have to change the tire specs, just lighter rims. from 24lbs rims to 18lbs rims. :dunno:

http://www.turbomagazine.com/tech/0106tur_wheels/

http://www.automotivehelper.com/topic92059.htm


----------



## DrivingMaryland (Jun 16, 2004)

ff said:


> As do I: The "ZHP" is all about marketing.


I love BMW marketing :thumbup: they made a wonderful package.


----------



## James (Jun 30, 2004)

doeboy said:


> Depends on the tires, but I've seen that the same tire in different sizes are heavier as you go up in rim size. Generally speaking that is. I'd imagine when you go up to 30" wheels, there's barely any rubber there so tire weight becomes insignificant? :dunno:


 30" wheels, sweet! Do they come with free spinners? :rofl:

Sorry, I jest...is it 5 O'clock yet??

James.


----------



## Andy (Jul 16, 2003)

I've got a set of 17x8 SSR Comps wrapped in sticky BFG KDs coming this week that I'll be using for the track. Switching from the 25 lb ZHP wheels to the 15 lb SSR wheels will save me 10 lbs per wheel. That's HUGE!! I can't wait to see what that feels like!! 



andy_thomas said:


> Personally I would think the slightly shorter diff of the 330x PP would make up any difference created by the extra lbs at each corner; the 10 hp difference isn't much to go on since we don't know for sure what the power curve looks like (it might be identical to the regular 330i's except for a little peak at 6,000 rpm, or it might be 10 hp stronger all the way along, or it might best the 330i by *more* than 10 hp at any other point or points in the rev range).


Power curve can be found here...
http://forums.bimmerfest.com/showthread.php?t=76193


----------



## HW (Dec 24, 2001)

adc said:


> Yes, yes, I maintain my opinion: :wahwah:.
> 
> With either article, there is no instrumented test that shows ANY performance increase. At all.
> 
> ...


http://www.mini2.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-10982



> 17's
> -----
> 0-60mph = 7.37, 6.74, 6.85 seconds
> 60-0mph = 127, 125, 133 feet
> ...


----------



## woody underwood (Feb 9, 2004)

My thoughts: When I went from the Club Sport ti to the ZHP (Talking packages here...easy folks) there was a definate difference in handling of course. The 330 just isn't as "responsive" as the ti was and I originally pegged it to the difference in overall weight of the cars...but there really isn't that much difference. So it has to be the wheels/tires. On the other hand, the ZHP sticks like glue under almost all circumstances and I could get the ti loose anywhere, anytime. So I guess it just matters what you want to do with your car: Autocross, drive the ti...Track, the 330 of course...Everyday, the 330...Snow, my rust bucket Jimmy. Pirelli's line about "Performance without control..." say's a lot about this thread.


----------



## HW (Dec 24, 2001)

woody underwood said:


> My thoughts: When I went from the Club Sport ti to the ZHP (Talking packages here...easy folks) there was a definate difference in handling of course. The 330 just isn't as "responsive" as the ti was and I originally pegged it to the difference in overall weight of the cars...but there really isn't that much difference. So it has to be the wheels/tires. On the other hand, the ZHP sticks like glue under almost all circumstances and I could get the ti loose anywhere, anytime. So I guess it just matters what you want to do with your car: Autocross, drive the ti...Track, the 330 of course...Everyday, the 330...Snow, my rust bucket Jimmy. Pirelli's line about "Performance without control..." say's a lot about this thread.


on the track, loose the spare and use lighter wheels. :dunno:


----------



## Fast Bob (Jun 4, 2004)

I would like to interject something from a slightly different point of view....once upon a time, I was a fairly good bicycle racer, and had (still have) some nice equipment....for everyday use, I used a set of wheels using 330 gram rims, with 300 gram tires (still very light by *normal* standards) and for races, I switched over to my ultralights, with 270 gram rims & 230 gram silk tires (run @ 115 psi !) The difference in weight was approx. five ounces, or 20%, but the *effect* was like night and day....acceleration was much quicker, and the loss of gyroscopic effect was quite evident. You may be asking "What the hell does a bicycle wheel have to do with this discussion?" We are discussing *mechanical* gains & losses here, which I think translates just fine....when it comes to unsprung wieght, lighter is *definitely* better.

Regards,
Bob


----------



## AF (Dec 21, 2001)

Kaz said:


> I maintain that wheel/tire weight makes a HUGE difference. It may not translate on paper, but you sure as hell will feel it.
> 
> I do not buy wheels or tires without taking weight into heavy consideration. Period.


I could not agree more :thumbup: As a lot of people on this board know, I went there at least 8 to 9 sets of wheels/tires on my 330i both 17's & 18's and I would notice as little as 3 lbs per wheel difference.

No doubt wheel weight makes a HUGE difference ... also for those looking for wheel weights and some tire weights as well, search under my name and you will find a lot of info as I always weighed my wheels.

I found the M68's with the Contisport tires to be the best as far as weight. I forgot but I think my type 79's were close in weight as well though they might have been a drop heavier.


----------



## adc (Apr 1, 2003)

HW said:


> 17's
> -----
> 0-60mph = 7.37, 6.74, 6.85 seconds
> 60-0mph = 127, 125, 133 feet
> ...


Wow, somebody felt the difference between the quickest run on 16 vs. 17 wheels: 6.52 vs. 6.74??? No freakin' way! 
(I'm excluding the 7.37 time on the 17 wheels which is obviously a fluke, since it was reduced substantially in later runs).

To me, the most telling difference is in braking actually. :thumbup: I acknowledge the instrumented difference - on the Mini, which has much less power, it would be more evident than on the 330, but still there is some difference.

The Honda guys noticed a 3.8WHP loss or so, when going with a 10lbs heavier wheel package - again that may be felt dramatically on a 140HP Civic, but it would be less obvious on a 330. But then again, they upgraded to a wheel that was almost 2" "longer". On a 6ft wheel, that's an alteration of the effective gearing of almost 3% - which could account for the loss of WHP observed.

And I still maintain it may not be sufficient to notice in daily driving. As for the track, I imagine you'll get the most bang from going to R compounds, regardless of wheel size. And yes, I would love to get a set of ligthweight forged 18" wheels, but it's too rich for my blood.

But wait: can someone vouch that by changing the OEM ZHP wheels with M68s (still with road tires), you get better lap times? If so, what was the difference?

adc
03 330 ZHP


----------



## Matthew330Ci (Sep 9, 2002)

reducing unsprung weight makes a much greater impact on a car's acceleration and general performance than reducing the same amoung of weight elsewhere on the car.

translated, that means 10 lbs saved on wheels makes much more of a difference than 10 lbs saved someplace else in the car.


----------



## Andy (Jul 16, 2003)

rumratt said:


> Hey Andy, are KD's heavy like the Azenis? That might reduce the amount of difference you feel.


I've heard the KDs are a bit heavy, but then again I've been unable to find any real numbers as far as weight goes. The #1 reason I decided on the KDs, are because of their grip level. I've heard that they are even a tad grippier then the Azenis, but they're just not as popular due to their price.

The tires will already come mounted on the wheels so I won't be able to weigh them separately, however I'll weigh my current wheel/tire combo and the new wheel/tire combo and let you guys know what it ends up being.


----------



## HW (Dec 24, 2001)

but you must agree that it's is consistent that the times are better for the lighter wheels.

anyhoo, here's another read

http://forums.s2ki.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=146319
http://www.s2ki.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46677

basically every 10 lbs of rotational mass is equiv to 100 lbs of vehicle weight. every 100 lbs of vehicle weight is 0.1sec in a 1/4 mile test.

as for everyday driving, i do feel a significant difference in handling/feel/braking/acceleration but you do feel the road more than with heavier wheels.



adc said:


> Wow, somebody felt the difference between the quickest run on 16 vs. 17 wheels: 6.52 vs. 6.74??? No freakin' way!
> (I'm excluding the 7.37 time on the 17 wheels which is obviously a fluke, since it was reduced substantially in later runs).
> 
> The Honda guys noticed a 3.8WHP loss or so, when going with a 10lbs heavier wheel package - again that may be felt dramatically on a 140HP Civic, but it would be less obvious on a 330. But then again, they upgraded to a wheel that was almost 2" "longer". On a 6ft wheel, that's an alteration of the effective gearing of almost 3% - which could account for the loss of WHP observed.
> ...


----------



## equ (Aug 11, 2004)

HW said:


> you clearly aren't reading. the zhp adds: +10HP, stiffer suspension, 18" wheels.
> but the bigger 18" wheels degrades: effective HP's, handling in turns, suspension response over bumps and increases braking distance. therefore what folks are saying here is that the performance benefits of the zhp package are nulled by the wheels in the package. however, the space saver spare in the zhp package helps to improve performance by cutting maybe 20lbs of sprung weight ~= 2hp.


When you're about to accuse somebody with not reading, make sure YOU read carefully before posting. My zhp is on 17's now and if you'd read my post you'd see that I said "a wheel swap is practically free". So I don't care if the benefits are nulled by the 18's (which they're not btw, quicker steering, better suspension, exhaust, higher redline and on and on). This package with only a wheel swap gives me the best stock handling on this side of an M3.


----------



## adc (Apr 1, 2003)

HW said:


> but you must agree that it's is consistent that the times are better for the lighter wheels.
> 
> basically every 10 lbs of rotational mass is equiv to 100 lbs of vehicle weight. every 100 lbs of vehicle weight is 0.1sec in a 1/4 mile test.
> 
> as for everyday driving, i do feel a significant difference in handling/feel/braking/acceleration but you do feel the road more than with heavier wheels.


HW, I appreciate your desire to provide good info, but I find the info on those thread lacking in proof. Other than the opinion of some the people posting, where is it proven that 10lbs of unsprung weight is equivalent to 100lbs of dead weight? Other people seem to think it's more like 40lbs - and the results from the Mini acceleration tests seem to support this (ie the Mini shed 10lbs per corner but only gained 0.2sec in the 0-60).

So you shed an average of 5lbs per corner (go from 24/26 ZHPs to some 20lbs front/back) which would be equivalent to something like 100lbs dead weight elimination. Your 0-60 and 1/4 mi times will go down by 0.1-0.2 sec, which in my book is negligible.

Seems logical that a lighter wheel (but with the same tires) will be faster around a track, if nothing else because of better braking distances. But going from an 18" wheel to a 17" wheel combo may not be faster around a track, because you loose some contact patch (and therefore grip).

So to me it makes perfect sense to get 18" lightweight forged wheels - but they are expensive ( :yikes: ). Or get a set of used 17" with R compounds for the track (the stickier compound will make up for any loss of contact patch size). Once I improve my skills considerably, and after I do other mods (sways, 255 front tires, track pads) - I may get to those wheels as well...

But pay $1k-$3k for better steering/suspension feel? :dunno: Not for me, thanks.

adc
03 330 ZHP


----------



## Andy (Jul 16, 2003)

Andy said:


> I've got a set of 17x8 SSR Comps wrapped in sticky BFG KDs coming this week that I'll be using for the track. Switching from the 25 lb ZHP wheels to the 15 lb SSR wheels will save me 10 lbs per wheel. That's HUGE!! I can't wait to see what that feels like!!


Well, I got them today. I used our bathroom scale to get these weights, so I'm sure the weights are not exact, but should be close enough.

50 lbs : 18 x 8.5 OEM ZHP Wheel (135M) with 255/35/18 Michelin Pilot Sport PS2
41 lbs : 17 x 8 SSR Competition Wheel with 245/40/17 BF Goodrich g-Force T/A KD
_____
9 lbs

After weighing both sets of wheels, I had the SSRs sitting right next to the 135Ms and noticed that the width of the 245s on 8" wheels almost looked wider then the 255s on 8.5" wheels. So I measured the tread width and discovered that the 245 KDs are actually wider then the 255 PS2s by 1/4" !! :yikes: The 255 PS2s are 9 1/8" wide and the 245 KDs are 9 3/8" wide.

The racing season can not come fast enough!!


----------



## bluetree211 (Apr 19, 2004)

adc said:


> ...But going from an 18" wheel to a 17" wheel combo may not be faster around a track, because you loose some contact patch (and therefore grip)...


Actually a 17" wheel could have the same shape and size patch as an 18" wheel. If anything, the stiffer sidewall of an 18" wheel might actually give it a smaller contact patch. You may have meant the width of the contact patch, but again, you can fit the same width tires on an 18" wheel as a 17" wheel.


----------



## FenPhen (Jan 13, 2004)

Andy said:


> 50 lbs : 18 x 8.5 OEM ZHP Wheel (135M) with 255/35/18 Michelin Pilot Sport PS2
> 41 lbs : 17 x 8 SSR Competition Wheel with 245/40/17 BF Goodrich g-Force T/A KD
> 
> So I measured the tread width and discovered that the 245 KDs are actually wider then the 255 PS2s by 1/4" !! :yikes: The 255 PS2s are 9 1/8" wide and the 245 KDs are 9 3/8" wide.


Ah, finally, progress in the thread! Now all we need to do is clone Andy and his car and give each car different wheels, and see what happens. 

Until we get more scientific comparisons, can any of this talk be conclusive since we have different wheel widths, different tire sizes, and a staggered setup? :dunno:

Yeah, a lighter wheel should see better acceleration, all other things being equal. But all other things aren't equal.

As for the ZHP stuff , with all the tweaks combined with heavy wheels, and the resulting sidewall and tire patch, C&D still reports a half-second improvement in 0-60 and quarter-mile times, better skid pad numbers (+0.03 G), and a 10-ft. reduction in stopping from 70.

And yes, BMW is all about marketing _and_ engineering. You need to excel in both to be successful, and that's what BMW does.


----------



## bluetree211 (Apr 19, 2004)

FenPhen said:


> ...better skid pad numbers (+0.03 G), and a 10-ft. reduction in stopping from 70...


not so fast... :nono:


> The package also substitutes Michelin Pilot Sport tires for the Continental ContiSportContacts that come in the Sport package


skid pad and braking are (primarily) tire vs. tire comparisons, nothing the ZHP added would account for that


----------



## FenPhen (Jan 13, 2004)

bluetree211 said:


> not so fast... :nono:
> skid pad and braking are (primarily) tire vs. tire comparisons, nothing the ZHP added would account for that


The better tires come in larger sizes on different wheels with different sidewalls and patch, as part of the package.

What I'm trying to say is that ZHP > SP in claimed and reported performance metrics, and that the thread should stick to discussion on wheel-tire combos, not packages. Keep everything constant in the comparison except for one variable.


----------



## zoofa (Dec 11, 2004)

andy_thomas said:


> I would suggest taking BMW's performance figures with a pinch of salt. Here is an example:
> 
> An absolutely base 316i on 6.5x15, 14lb factory alloys, 195mm wide tyres, no bodykit and a kerb weight of less than 1,300 kg is given a 0-62 mph of around 10.6 sec. A fully-loaded 316i Sport with 18" wheels, very wide (255mm) rear tyres, and a full complement of equipment is quoted by BMW as having exactly the same acceleration figures. The moderate static weight penalty of the extra equipment and bodykit is joined by the extra rolling resistance of the bigger tyres, and the dynamic weight generated by the larger wheels and tyres (your trade-off for good looks and more grip). So I would not, in an isolated case, go just on the basis of BMW's performance figures (which, like its fuel economy claims, are often inaccurate).
> 
> Personally I would think the slightly shorter diff of the 330x PP would make up any difference created by the extra lbs at each corner; the 10 hp difference isn't much to go on since we don't know for sure what the power curve looks like (it might be identical to the regular 330i's except for a little peak at 6,000 rpm, or it might be 10 hp stronger all the way along, or it might best the 330i by *more* than 10 hp at any other point or points in the rev range).


We all know the ZHP was introduced merely due to pressure applied by the mysterious and powerful lobbyists of the alcantara industry  :angel:


----------



## bluetree211 (Apr 19, 2004)

FenPhen said:


> The better tires come in larger sizes on different wheels with different sidewalls and patch, as part of the package.
> 
> What I'm trying to say is that ZHP > SP in claimed and reported performance metrics, and that the thread should stick to discussion on wheel-tire combos, not packages. Keep everything constant in the comparison except for one variable.


well if we are keeping a constant, lets keep the tires constant as well to achieve an accurate baseline. Initially, the sport package came with michelin pilots, so shouldn't we be comparing pilot sports to pilot sports? Aren't some zhp's coming with bridgestone re040s now? lets compare a sport package with pilots to a zhp with re040. Unfair you say? Try to remember that tires are the only thing on a car that is touching the ground, and you should never underestimate their effect on performance numbers. If the only way you can claim an advantage is by comparing against the sport package's inferior tires, then so be it. :dunno:


----------



## doeboy (Sep 20, 2002)

BTW... Sport Pkg cars don't always have Contis.... Mine and many others came with Pilot Sports.


----------



## LDV330i (May 24, 2003)

bluetree211 said:


> Aren't some zhp's coming with bridgestone re040s now? lets compare a sport package with pilots to a zhp with re040. :dunno:


 

From day 1 the ZHP package has included either the Miichelin Pilots or the Bridgestones RE040 as standard tires. Getting either is random. 2 of us pick our cars with ZHP in Munich the same day. He got Michelins and I got Bridgestones.


----------



## FenPhen (Jan 13, 2004)

bluetree211 said:


> Initially, the sport package came with michelin pilots, so shouldn't we be comparing pilot sports to pilot sports?


Yes, we should.

As LDV330i said, the ZHP package comes with Pilot Sports or RE040s, and I believe all the press models come with Pilot Sports.

For Car & Driver, their ZHP had Pilot Sports. They didn't specifically say what their SP model had, but a general statement that the ZHP "package also substitutes Michelin Pilot Sport tires for the Continental ContiSportContacts that come in the Sport package." The performances numbers they listed for the 330i SP were tested in December 2000 (does that qualify as "initially?").



> If the only way you can claim an advantage is by comparing against the sport package's inferior tires, then so be it.


So, I don't have the luxury of owning both a ZHP and an SP and then shodding them with the same tire model and then going out to an instrumented test facility. And I can tell you now that I cannot feel the difference between 0.86-g grip and 0.83-g grip nor tell you that I stopped 10 feet shorter than an SP 330. I also can't tell you how lower-profile sidewalls, wider contact patches, lowered ride height, and any other ZHP suspension differences affect grip or braking.

What I can tell you is that all of the automotive press articles I've read about the Performance Package do not confirm any of the skepticism or criticism that come out on the board, and having done my own test drives at a dealer, the ZHP definitely feels better in acceleration and handling. (Roundel: Is the ZHP Half Baked or Well Done?)

My point all along is that the ZHP package _delivers_ what it was supposed to deliver: improved performance over the SP and cosmetic changes. If BMW decided to put better tire selection in the ZHP and it delivers results, that's fine by me. It's not like they're cheating. Put all of it together and I bet a stock ZHP with Pilot Sports running road-course laps against a stock SP with Pilot Sports will still outperform.


----------



## bluetree211 (Apr 19, 2004)

FenPhen said:


> ...And I can tell you now that I cannot feel the difference between 0.86-g grip and 0.83-g grip nor tell you that I stopped 10 feet shorter than an SP 330...






FenPhen said:


> ...and having done my own test drives at a dealer, the ZHP definitely feels better in acceleration and handling...


which is it? can you or can't you feel the difference? :dunno:


----------



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

bluetree211 said:


> which is it? can you or can't you feel the difference? :dunno:


One quote was objective, the other subjective. A £13k Renault Clio Cup will generate less peak g than e.g. a 330i Touring on factory 18"s and Michelins. There's no doubt, though, that the Clio handles better than the 330i Touring.


----------



## FenPhen (Jan 13, 2004)

bluetree211 said:


> which is it? can you or can't you feel the difference? :dunno:


"Acceleration and handling" versus "skidpad grip and braking distance" are different things. Also, as andy_thomas said, one is a qualitative comparison ("feels better in acceleration and handling") and the other was a statement that I can't feel the _quantitative_ difference of +0.03-g grip and -10-ft. stopping distance.


----------



## bluetree211 (Apr 19, 2004)

that makes sense to me, good skidpad doesn't equate to good handling

I'm confused about this however: http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=15&article_id=2267&page_number=1 (full article in Car & Driver July 2002, pp 74-81)
Shows the 330ci sport getting:
0.85g on the skidpad (vs. ZHP's 0.86g)
0-60 in 5.8s (vs. ZHP's 5.6s)
1/4 mile in 14.4 @ 97 mph (vs. ZHP's 14.3 @ 97mph)

Did they forget about this test when choosing numbers for the performance package article?


----------



## kyyuan (Jul 14, 2002)

holy cow...all Sas449 wanted was the weight of the wheels. 

While I enjoyed reading the constructive/interesting discussion of tire postings, those who focused on asserting a position of BMW "marketing" and other crap should go start another thread.


----------

