- 1,020
Here's an old vs new comparo of the BMWs. It's quite long, so feel free to cut to the Nurburgring section (where there's a brief summary of what went before) or to the conclusion itself. Comments from anyone welcome, esp if you've driven either car in RL. Enjoy...
Find performance figures etc here:
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=55525&stc=1
Looking in my garage recently, I was struck by the similarity in specifications of two very different cars from BMW, the 120d and the old 2002 turbo. Both produce similar power, are a similar size and have 2 litre turbocharged engines.
I started wondering in what ways BMWs had changed over the years, both dynamically and in concept, and so took them both for a spin to see what I could discover.
Conceptually, these are very different cars: the 2002 Turbo was the M3 of its day, the range topping firebrand whose macho image would rub off onto its lesser brethren. Its 177bhp engine was not to be sniffed at in 1973, offering more power than any contemporary road-going Lotus, and nearly 50bhp up on its by no means slow sister car, the fuel injected 2002Tii. Even the base model 2002 was considered a fast car at the time, and it mustered a mere 100bhp. Im struggling to think of a direct competitor for this car, and frankly the only 4 seater to touch it would be the180bhp Porsche 911S.
The 120d on the other hand is a very different animal: a diesel for a start, this is BMWs entry level rear drive car. Intended as a rival to the VW Golf and the Audi A3 its a sophisticated, modern 5 door hatch with, uniquely in its class, rear wheel drive. Its a much heavier car than the 2002, as we have come to expect of modern cars, and the engine is blessed with a table mountain for a torque curve. Its intention is to be comfortable, relaxing, and competent in the first place, and a drivers car in the second place.
So how do they compare in the extreme environment of GT4?
Performance figures first: the 2002 weighs just 982kg compared to the 120s 1415kg, so you would expect the older car to win the acceleration tests comfortably. Not so: over 400m they are separated by just 0.2 seconds, and over the kilometer, the gap is just 0.66secs. Hardly a walkover. How can this be? The answer lies in the torque curve: a car relies on its torque for acceleration, so despite a noticeably inferior power to weight ratio, the 120 is able to keep pace with the lighter car.
Incidentally, all driver aids were turned off for the tests, but I did try the modern car with traction control, on the basis that the real car has it (edit: just found out you cant turn off the traction control in RL, which is a bit poo ), but it actually performed better with the TCS turned off, pointing to good grip and traction for the newer car. The 2002 performed best with a full throttle, bouncing off the rev-limiter start, with a subsequent lift to quell the inevitable wheel spin.
Round 1 to the old timer then, but only just. For the top speed runs the tables were turned. I expected the newer cars superior aerodynamics to give it a massive advantage, but it was barely 6mph faster, 140.4mph compared to 134.8, a good result for the 2002.
And so to the circuits. I tried them on both Paris circuits, which contrast very nicely with each other. George V is pretty tight, all 2nd /3rd gear stuff, and the older cars light weight was a real bonus here. It was a hoot, too, the tail wagging at every opportunity, drifts galore all the way round, sliding gracefully onto the Champs Elysees at the end of the lap, never a dull moment. If you missed the braking point, thered be understeer going into the corner, but if you judged it right it would be nicely balanced, with the back swinging out under power out of the 2nd gear corners, as youd expect. A bit untidy, perhaps, but nicely controllable.
The 120 wasnt really at home here it felt ungainly through the tight corners, and the weight really seemed to count against it. However, the suspension was always well controlled, the car was always well balanced, and its absolute neutrality was clear very little actually disturbed this cars equilibrium, and severe understeer was noticeable only by its absence. The only place where you felt any loss of grip was on the long bend around the Arc de Triomphe, and even there it was merely an on/off-throttle adjustment of attitude that you could feel. The 2002 shades it by 0.4secs.
Opera was a different story. Its a faster circuit and suited the 120 better than the 2002, which was about 7/10ths off the pace. However that doesnt tell the full story, as until 4 corners from the end the two were neck and neck, but the following chicane tied the 2002 in knots: the change in direction and a bump at the apex would combine to throw the tail out, leaving the rear wheel spinning, which in turn would require a sizeable lift to sort out and so restore forward momentum. You probably could find a tidy way through that section, but Id already done several laps more than in the 120, so it seemed unfair on the newcomer to take any longer.
The 120 was again very composed and neutral on this bumpy and frequently awkward circuit. This was especially noticeable round the hairpin in front of the Opera House itself (grand building with gold ornaments), where there was a welcome lack of understeer, and the car just went where you pointed it. This is a corner where a FWD car would be struggling with both understeer and torque-steer, but the RWD set-up shows its class, letting the car just track round.
The 2002 was again great fun, with a smidgen of oversteer everywhere but with the balance to control it if youre gentle. Through Place Vendome, for example (the square with that big column in the middle of it 1/3rd through the lap), it would track nicely through the first part, need a little correction in the middle, and storm out the other side in a slight drift just what youd want, really. In front of the Opera House, however, it would run wide, understeering through the hairpin, but then get its power down nicely on the way out.
So, to summarise, we have two cars of similar power and size, which accelerate at a similar rate and have a similar top speed, but whose weights are very different, whose suspension systems give them very different handling traits, and which have very different engine characteristics. How will they fare at the Nurburgring?
Finally I took the cars to the Nurgurgring. Not just because I like it, but also because of the wide variety of corners you find there and its real world feel: I think its as close as you get to an empty open road in GT4, despite being a closed circuit. The times are very close, which was unexpected; youd think that after nearly 9 minutes one would have triumphed over the other, but no, it was swings and roundabouts all the way.
To begin with they were neck and neck, with the 120 edging ahead only at the tricky downhill section after Kallenhard (awkward tightening downhill right-hander), where its greater composure allowed you to keep the power down. The 2002 at this point was teetering on the edge of adhesion, and required a careful hand to keep it on the track. The 120 maintained its advantage through Breidscheid (the double apex left where you can see a house on the bend), but on the following uphill sections the tables were turned, and the 2002 was able to power away up the hill leaving the 120 gasping.
At this point its worth mentioning the gearing, because I think this was the 2002s real advantage here, along with its light weight. The 2002 has just a 4 speed gearbox to reach its 134mph top speed and the 120 has a six speed box, although on the track you only really use 5. At 100mph the 2002 is in 4th at 5000rpm (ie c.20mph/1000rpm), while the 120 needs just 4300rpm in 4th and 3200rpm in 5th (c. 23.25mph/1000rpm & 31.25mph/1000rpm respectively), giving the older car a greater mechanical advantage, and thus, at these higher speeds, greater thrust. And this, I believe, explains the way the 2002 was able to gain 5 secs by the time they reached the Karussel at the top of the hill.
But the next section was equally astonishing, as the 120s greater composure and grip allowed it to reap most of that back in less than a mile. It stormed through Hohe Acht (the fast left-right-right-left complex over a brow some 1/4mile after the Karussel), and was a revelation through the difficult and critical Wipperman just afterwards. Someone really good could probably take that flat out in the 120, but I made do with a little lift here and there.
Through the same section, the 2002 was a handful, and also lacked the sheer grip of the 120. A twitch here, a slide wide there, it needed constant work to keep it on line, costing it seconds in the process. By the time wed got to the spectator areas at Brunchen the 120 was just a second off the 2002s tail.
The rest of the lap was pretty uneventful, the 120 gaining a little here and there, until the last section where it finally nosed ahead, its greater composure again winning the hand.
Although on the surface, the performance of these two cars appears near identical, they achieve it in very different ways. I find it impressive that the 120d is able to make up for its excess weight with the sophistication of its suspension and its mountainous torque: I never thought that it would be able to keep up with the Turbo round a circuit, but it did quite comfortably.
I think the GT4 version of the 2002 Turbo is a little sanitized compared to the real thing. Turbo lag, for example, is not really modeled, and Im certain this car would have suffered from it to a noticeable degree. This would have made the car a right handful in some corners, if the turbo were to cut in half way round, but theres no hint of this in GT4. If anyones actually driven one itd be interesting to find out (Jay Kay, are you reading this ?). However the handling is pretty close to what I remember of a standard 2002 20 years ago, so .
The 120d shows in its composure and relaxed demeanour the way cars have come on in the last 30 years. Although not a pure drivers car, it would still please an enthusiastic driver who was looking for something undemanding to drive every day, while its subtleties would probably be lost on the average driver. Incidentally, the 120 was very easy to drive fast, and to match its times I always needed more time in the 2002 to get the best out of it it was easy to make a mistake and lose time.
The 2002 Turbo is a riot to drive, but its primitive suspension, which is brought into perspective by this comparison, is exactly what makes it so entertaining. This entertainment is what we have lost over the years. Cars are now so competent at going round corners without frightening Grandma out of her wits, that a sub 9 minute lap becomes not only possible in an ordinary car, but routine and almost unexciting. Thus if you want both competence and excitement you need, quite simply, more power. M3 anyone?....
The March of Progress:
BMW 120d vs BMW 2002 Turbo
BMW 120d vs BMW 2002 Turbo
Find performance figures etc here:
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=55525&stc=1
Looking in my garage recently, I was struck by the similarity in specifications of two very different cars from BMW, the 120d and the old 2002 turbo. Both produce similar power, are a similar size and have 2 litre turbocharged engines.
I started wondering in what ways BMWs had changed over the years, both dynamically and in concept, and so took them both for a spin to see what I could discover.
The Cars
Conceptually, these are very different cars: the 2002 Turbo was the M3 of its day, the range topping firebrand whose macho image would rub off onto its lesser brethren. Its 177bhp engine was not to be sniffed at in 1973, offering more power than any contemporary road-going Lotus, and nearly 50bhp up on its by no means slow sister car, the fuel injected 2002Tii. Even the base model 2002 was considered a fast car at the time, and it mustered a mere 100bhp. Im struggling to think of a direct competitor for this car, and frankly the only 4 seater to touch it would be the180bhp Porsche 911S.
The 120d on the other hand is a very different animal: a diesel for a start, this is BMWs entry level rear drive car. Intended as a rival to the VW Golf and the Audi A3 its a sophisticated, modern 5 door hatch with, uniquely in its class, rear wheel drive. Its a much heavier car than the 2002, as we have come to expect of modern cars, and the engine is blessed with a table mountain for a torque curve. Its intention is to be comfortable, relaxing, and competent in the first place, and a drivers car in the second place.
So how do they compare in the extreme environment of GT4?
Performance Figures
Performance figures first: the 2002 weighs just 982kg compared to the 120s 1415kg, so you would expect the older car to win the acceleration tests comfortably. Not so: over 400m they are separated by just 0.2 seconds, and over the kilometer, the gap is just 0.66secs. Hardly a walkover. How can this be? The answer lies in the torque curve: a car relies on its torque for acceleration, so despite a noticeably inferior power to weight ratio, the 120 is able to keep pace with the lighter car.
Incidentally, all driver aids were turned off for the tests, but I did try the modern car with traction control, on the basis that the real car has it (edit: just found out you cant turn off the traction control in RL, which is a bit poo ), but it actually performed better with the TCS turned off, pointing to good grip and traction for the newer car. The 2002 performed best with a full throttle, bouncing off the rev-limiter start, with a subsequent lift to quell the inevitable wheel spin.
Round 1 to the old timer then, but only just. For the top speed runs the tables were turned. I expected the newer cars superior aerodynamics to give it a massive advantage, but it was barely 6mph faster, 140.4mph compared to 134.8, a good result for the 2002.
Paris George V
And so to the circuits. I tried them on both Paris circuits, which contrast very nicely with each other. George V is pretty tight, all 2nd /3rd gear stuff, and the older cars light weight was a real bonus here. It was a hoot, too, the tail wagging at every opportunity, drifts galore all the way round, sliding gracefully onto the Champs Elysees at the end of the lap, never a dull moment. If you missed the braking point, thered be understeer going into the corner, but if you judged it right it would be nicely balanced, with the back swinging out under power out of the 2nd gear corners, as youd expect. A bit untidy, perhaps, but nicely controllable.
The 120 wasnt really at home here it felt ungainly through the tight corners, and the weight really seemed to count against it. However, the suspension was always well controlled, the car was always well balanced, and its absolute neutrality was clear very little actually disturbed this cars equilibrium, and severe understeer was noticeable only by its absence. The only place where you felt any loss of grip was on the long bend around the Arc de Triomphe, and even there it was merely an on/off-throttle adjustment of attitude that you could feel. The 2002 shades it by 0.4secs.
Paris Opera
Opera was a different story. Its a faster circuit and suited the 120 better than the 2002, which was about 7/10ths off the pace. However that doesnt tell the full story, as until 4 corners from the end the two were neck and neck, but the following chicane tied the 2002 in knots: the change in direction and a bump at the apex would combine to throw the tail out, leaving the rear wheel spinning, which in turn would require a sizeable lift to sort out and so restore forward momentum. You probably could find a tidy way through that section, but Id already done several laps more than in the 120, so it seemed unfair on the newcomer to take any longer.
The 120 was again very composed and neutral on this bumpy and frequently awkward circuit. This was especially noticeable round the hairpin in front of the Opera House itself (grand building with gold ornaments), where there was a welcome lack of understeer, and the car just went where you pointed it. This is a corner where a FWD car would be struggling with both understeer and torque-steer, but the RWD set-up shows its class, letting the car just track round.
The 2002 was again great fun, with a smidgen of oversteer everywhere but with the balance to control it if youre gentle. Through Place Vendome, for example (the square with that big column in the middle of it 1/3rd through the lap), it would track nicely through the first part, need a little correction in the middle, and storm out the other side in a slight drift just what youd want, really. In front of the Opera House, however, it would run wide, understeering through the hairpin, but then get its power down nicely on the way out.
The Nurburgring
So, to summarise, we have two cars of similar power and size, which accelerate at a similar rate and have a similar top speed, but whose weights are very different, whose suspension systems give them very different handling traits, and which have very different engine characteristics. How will they fare at the Nurburgring?
Finally I took the cars to the Nurgurgring. Not just because I like it, but also because of the wide variety of corners you find there and its real world feel: I think its as close as you get to an empty open road in GT4, despite being a closed circuit. The times are very close, which was unexpected; youd think that after nearly 9 minutes one would have triumphed over the other, but no, it was swings and roundabouts all the way.
To begin with they were neck and neck, with the 120 edging ahead only at the tricky downhill section after Kallenhard (awkward tightening downhill right-hander), where its greater composure allowed you to keep the power down. The 2002 at this point was teetering on the edge of adhesion, and required a careful hand to keep it on the track. The 120 maintained its advantage through Breidscheid (the double apex left where you can see a house on the bend), but on the following uphill sections the tables were turned, and the 2002 was able to power away up the hill leaving the 120 gasping.
At this point its worth mentioning the gearing, because I think this was the 2002s real advantage here, along with its light weight. The 2002 has just a 4 speed gearbox to reach its 134mph top speed and the 120 has a six speed box, although on the track you only really use 5. At 100mph the 2002 is in 4th at 5000rpm (ie c.20mph/1000rpm), while the 120 needs just 4300rpm in 4th and 3200rpm in 5th (c. 23.25mph/1000rpm & 31.25mph/1000rpm respectively), giving the older car a greater mechanical advantage, and thus, at these higher speeds, greater thrust. And this, I believe, explains the way the 2002 was able to gain 5 secs by the time they reached the Karussel at the top of the hill.
But the next section was equally astonishing, as the 120s greater composure and grip allowed it to reap most of that back in less than a mile. It stormed through Hohe Acht (the fast left-right-right-left complex over a brow some 1/4mile after the Karussel), and was a revelation through the difficult and critical Wipperman just afterwards. Someone really good could probably take that flat out in the 120, but I made do with a little lift here and there.
Through the same section, the 2002 was a handful, and also lacked the sheer grip of the 120. A twitch here, a slide wide there, it needed constant work to keep it on line, costing it seconds in the process. By the time wed got to the spectator areas at Brunchen the 120 was just a second off the 2002s tail.
The rest of the lap was pretty uneventful, the 120 gaining a little here and there, until the last section where it finally nosed ahead, its greater composure again winning the hand.
Conclusion
Although on the surface, the performance of these two cars appears near identical, they achieve it in very different ways. I find it impressive that the 120d is able to make up for its excess weight with the sophistication of its suspension and its mountainous torque: I never thought that it would be able to keep up with the Turbo round a circuit, but it did quite comfortably.
I think the GT4 version of the 2002 Turbo is a little sanitized compared to the real thing. Turbo lag, for example, is not really modeled, and Im certain this car would have suffered from it to a noticeable degree. This would have made the car a right handful in some corners, if the turbo were to cut in half way round, but theres no hint of this in GT4. If anyones actually driven one itd be interesting to find out (Jay Kay, are you reading this ?). However the handling is pretty close to what I remember of a standard 2002 20 years ago, so .
The 120d shows in its composure and relaxed demeanour the way cars have come on in the last 30 years. Although not a pure drivers car, it would still please an enthusiastic driver who was looking for something undemanding to drive every day, while its subtleties would probably be lost on the average driver. Incidentally, the 120 was very easy to drive fast, and to match its times I always needed more time in the 2002 to get the best out of it it was easy to make a mistake and lose time.
The 2002 Turbo is a riot to drive, but its primitive suspension, which is brought into perspective by this comparison, is exactly what makes it so entertaining. This entertainment is what we have lost over the years. Cars are now so competent at going round corners without frightening Grandma out of her wits, that a sub 9 minute lap becomes not only possible in an ordinary car, but routine and almost unexciting. Thus if you want both competence and excitement you need, quite simply, more power. M3 anyone?....
Nice idea for a comparison, and a multi-track one too. I like the multitrack format, because it gives you a more complete picture of the cars in question, and, as you've shown, varying laptimes and winners.
.
)
.....well.....I'm kinda dissapointed you didn't use street tires (like N2), but anyway, the write-up is FANTASTIC !!! Congrats mate, really nice read 👍👍
