RE: BMW 4 Series Convertible: Review

[g35x]

RoverP6B said:

You'd be surprised about that 520. It's slow to 30 but it really does pull strongly - no lag, precious little inertia, it really likes to rev (and in fact it feels like it's still got plenty more to give when the limiter kicks in - I'm going to see about what would be required to lift the rev limit without nuking the engine). I've stuck with it for the simple reason that I LIKE IT. I've tried the newer BMWs and I just can't get on with them. Right now, there's nothing new that I want. I know I'm far from alone in feeling this way. My choice is as valid as yours and vice versa.

Appreciate the response, but it seems to me you look at every modern vehicle and pick fault to justify your own decision to stay with your E39, which i agree is a classic in terms of BMW. Just looking through your posting history you've basically dished out the same view over and over again like a broken record (e.g. no turbos, no trick suspension, no dual-clutch, no piped in engine noise).

You slate the diesel F10 520d as having a narrow power band, and the E93 M3 Convertible for being like a 'blancmange'. What you aren't saying it that the E9x M3 range has a glorious engine that you can wind up to over 8,000 rpm, and that the structural rigidity of the F10 is far superior to the E39. Both are objectively far superior to your car in almost all performance measures. The E93 M3 clearly isn't the last word in dynamics, but it can still show the E92 335i a clear pair of heels on tight tracks and that alone is impressive.

It's great to have an opinion but everyone knows your stance on modern cars and equipment loud and clear ... message received.

[Grandfondo]

RoverP6B said:

HumbleJim said:

Grandfondo said:

What happens if you put suit cases and passengers in the back of your precious 50/50 car?

I think it's okay if you fold the back seats down.

Are two passengers and a bit of luggage really likely to weigh as much as that bloody great folding hardtop and its mechanisms?

Yes!

[RichB]

I always use the see-saw test i.e. imagine would 2 blokes and some luggage on one end a see-saw outweigh the roof and its mechanism. I'd say certainly yes.

[Amirhussain]

g35x said:

RoverP6B said:

You'd be surprised about that 520. It's slow to 30 but it really does pull strongly - no lag, precious little inertia, it really likes to rev (and in fact it feels like it's still got plenty more to give when the limiter kicks in - I'm going to see about what would be required to lift the rev limit without nuking the engine). I've stuck with it for the simple reason that I LIKE IT. I've tried the newer BMWs and I just can't get on with them. Right now, there's nothing new that I want. I know I'm far from alone in feeling this way. My choice is as valid as yours and vice versa.

Appreciate the response, but it seems to me you look at every modern vehicle and pick fault to justify your own decision to stay with your E39, which i agree is a classic in terms of BMW. Just looking through your posting history you've basically dished out the same view over and over again like a broken record (e.g. no turbos, no trick suspension, no dual-clutch, no piped in engine noise).

You slate the diesel F10 520d as having a narrow power band, and the E93 M3 Convertible for being like a 'blancmange'. What you aren't saying it that the E9x M3 range has a glorious engine that you can wind up to over 8,000 rpm, and that the structural rigidity of the F10 is far superior to the E39. Both are objectively far superior to your car in almost all performance measures. The E93 M3 clearly isn't the last word in dynamics, but it can still show the E92 335i a clear pair of heels on tight tracks and that alone is impressive.

It's great to have an opinion but everyone knows your stance on modern cars and equipment loud and clear ... message received.

+1, give it a rest.

[Herbs]

+2

I've got a new 320d courtesy car whilst my 6 series cab is in for some warranty work and have been very impressed by the engine and chassis in what is essentially one of the lower end cars (despite a good spec). I imagine the 335d is even more impressive.

[Grandfondo]

RoverP6B said:

You'd be surprised about that 520. It's slow to 30 but it really does pull strongly - no lag, precious little inertia, it really likes to rev (and in fact it feels like it's still got plenty more to give when the limiter kicks in - I'm going to see about what would be required to lift the rev limit without nuking the engine). I've stuck with it for the simple reason that I LIKE IT. I've tried the newer BMWs and I just can't get on with them. Right now, there's nothing new that I want. I know I'm far from alone in feeling this way. My choice is as valid as yours and vice versa.

I would be very surprised indeed if it had more go than an asthmatic budgie!

[RoverP6B]

Ozzie Osmond said:

I'd be looking at the soft-top 1 series (2 series) or maybe a used 6 series if you want a bigger car.

Tried them both in the dealership - I simply couldn't fit in them. With the seat sitting as low as it went (in both), my eyes were level with the top rail of the windscreen.

[RoverP6B]

g35x said:

Appreciate the response, but it seems to me you look at every modern vehicle and pick fault to justify your own decision to stay with your E39, which i agree is a classic in terms of BMW. Just looking through your posting history you've basically dished out the same view over and over again like a broken record (e.g. no turbos, no trick suspension, no dual-clutch, no piped in engine noise).

You slate the diesel F10 520d as having a narrow power band, and the E93 M3 Convertible for being like a 'blancmange'. What you aren't saying it that the E9x M3 range has a glorious engine that you can wind up to over 8,000 rpm, and that the structural rigidity of the F10 is far superior to the E39. Both are objectively far superior to your car in almost all performance measures. The E93 M3 clearly isn't the last word in dynamics, but it can still show the E92 335i a clear pair of heels on tight tracks and that alone is impressive.

It's great to have an opinion but everyone knows your stance on modern cars and equipment loud and clear ... message received.

No trick suspension? Where have I said that? I have immense admiration for the likes of Citroen and McLaren on that front. The E9x M3 engine is quite nice, but it sounds rather bland to my ears - the S50/S52/S54 straight six sounds so much more musical to me. The E39 I bang on about because the major parts of it really are very good. That's not to say I can't find fault with it - I could reel off a litany of niggly little issues that conspire to reduce the enjoyment of owning the bloody thing. However, the way it handles, responds and even just settles down on the motorway with the engine barely audible (despite the addictive induction snarl as I floor it in second up slip-roads)... BMW just got it so damn right there. I'd have bought a 530i if I'd known how long the 520i would take to get to 30mph, though - a classic case of mixing eBay and beer! Regarding the E93's torsional rigidity, having ridden in one with the top down, it just felt soft and wobbly - more a quick boulevard cruiser than a genuine sports car. I was also, to be honest, surprised how heavy it is. I know that someone here ("Cerb4.5lee", if I recall correctly) has observed that 295 lb/ft isn't that much for such a heavy car - enough for it to be quick, but it won't trouble the Ferraris of its time in the way an E36 or E46 M3 will. That BMW's arguably most famous and prestigious sports car ended up weighing the wrong side of 1700kg... they need to stop making models bigger each new generation. Of course the bloody customer clinics will say they want a bigger 1/3/5 series - but the marketing men should reply with 'Yes, we make one of those. It's called the 3/5/7-series'.

F10 - it didn't HAVE a power band. It had a power wallop-over-the-head-with-a-sledgehammer. Also, despite it being a foot longer and a fair bit wider than my E39, I couldn't fit my bike in it, not anyhow. It goes into the E39 with no problems whatsoever. The F10's boot is actually a lot narrower than the E39's. God knows what all that dead space is for. I think the next purchase I make will be a Mercedes E-class estate...

[RoverP6B]

Grandfondo said:

I would be very surprised indeed if it had more go than an asthmatic budgie!

It goes like an asthmatic budgie to 30mph, certainly!

However, once you've overcome the basic inertia of lugging around 1680kg, it's surprising how strongly it pulls. As I said, the engine feels like the rev limiter cuts in too early, and I'm going to see about raising it. Even at triple-figure speeds, if you then floor the accelerator, there's no waiting and wondering where all the power has gone - it just goes. I haven't had it all the way to the book figure top speed of 139mph, but I have no doubt it can achieve that. Realistically, that's enough to land one in prison if caught on public roads, it's as much as you can achieve in most road cars on most racetracks, it's as much as you're going to get even on most autobahns. I'd like more torque and/or more engine RPM, certainly, but I honestly don't need more power. It used to be that over 100bhp/ton (this is 102) was quite enough for a car to be considered quick. My wife's old Peugeot 205 was only 84bhp/ton and that was quite fast enough to scare one's self slightly, driving the wheels off it through the Pyrenees, on a Stelvio-like mountain pass. That was a joyous experience, and anyone who thinks a 2-ton barge with an autobox and 500+ bhp is motoring nirvana should go and get a basic 1.4 litre Pug 205 and thrash the wotsits off it for a while. I guarantee that the M5/whatever will feel utterly dead after that, even though the Pug wouldn't see which way it went in a straight line. Actually, that is my one major criticism of the E39 - it's so bloody heavy (albeit 300kg lighter model-for-model than the F10/11). Use of aluminium or reinforced plastic panels for the door skins, front wings, tailgate and suchlike would have shaved a lot of weight off it and made it more rewarding to drive. However, it's easier to forgive a family estate its roughly 1.7 ton mass than a sports coupe like an M3!

[Grandfondo]

RoverP6B said:

Grandfondo said:

I would be very surprised indeed if it had more go than an asthmatic budgie!

It goes like an asthmatic budgie to 30mph, certainly!

However, once you've overcome the basic inertia of lugging around 1680kg, it's surprising how strongly it pulls. As I said, the engine feels like the rev limiter cuts in too early, and I'm going to see about raising it. Even at triple-figure speeds, if you then floor the accelerator, there's no waiting and wondering where all the power has gone - it just goes. I haven't had it all the way to the book figure top speed of 139mph, but I have no doubt it can achieve that. Realistically, that's enough to land one in prison if caught on public roads, it's as much as you can achieve in most road cars on most racetracks, it's as much as you're going to get even on most autobahns. I'd like more torque and/or more engine RPM, certainly, but I honestly don't need more power. It used to be that over 100bhp/ton (this is 102) was quite enough for a car to be considered quick. My wife's old Peugeot 205 was only 84bhp/ton and that was quite fast enough to scare one's self slightly, driving the wheels off it through the Pyrenees, on a Stelvio-like mountain pass. That was a joyous experience, and anyone who thinks a 2-ton barge with an autobox and 500+ bhp is motoring nirvana should go and get a basic 1.4 litre Pug 205 and thrash the wotsits off it for a while. I guarantee that the M5/whatever will feel utterly dead after that, even though the

Pug wouldn't see which way it went in a straight line. Actually, that is my one major criticism of the E39 - it's so bloody heavy (albeit 300kg lighter model-for-model than the F10/11). Use of aluminium or reinforced plastic panels for the door skins, front wings, tailgate and suchlike would have shaved a lot of weight off it and made it more rewarding to drive. However, it's easier to forgive a family estate its roughly 1.7 ton mass than a sports coupe like an M3!

"pulls strongly"

It would struggle to pull a sailor of your sister!

[aspirated]

A small capacity petrol, automatic, xDrive, SE version of a 4 cabrio would be perfect for my mother. Hard top -tick, auto - tick, 4WD - tick. Almost everything a BMW shouldn't be

[RoverP6B]

Grandfondo said:

"pulls strongly"

It would struggle to pull a sailor of your sister!

A - you'd be surprised. The balance and low inertia of the N/A straight six means it goes far better than 170hp suggests. 100bhp/ton is enough for a quick car in most people's books, I'd just like more torque.

B - I'm an only child.

[canucklehead]

RoverP6B said:

I would prefer the E46 in some ways, yes, but that's now a 20-year-old design so it's not fair to compare. I've been a passenger in an E93 M3 with the top down and it felt distinctly wobbly. The E90 series has only just gone out of production and there are still new examples around to be had. I'm sorry, but nothing will EVER tempt me to buy something turbocharged or with questionable torsional rigidity. I enjoy a rigid bodyshell and natural aspiration (with the sharp throttle response that brings) too much.

after you with that rigid bodyshell and sharp throttle response ;-)

[PHC]

E93 one of the best 4 seat convertibles around BM did an amazing job on rigidity.
Nobody buys a convertible for it's rigidity no argument there.
Ultimately in every day driving for an owner who's not going to go to a circuit why not have a convertible, and if you are going to get a convertible nothing better than a folding tin top BM.

I'm looking forward to driving this new one.

[RoverP6B]

PHC said:

Ultimately in every day driving for an owner who's not going to go to a circuit why not have a convertible, and if you are going to get a convertible nothing better than a folding tin top BM.

I'm looking forward to driving this new one.

Because a convertible flexes like hell even at fairly low speed on the average British B-road - and the E93 is no exception, unless you keep the top up (in which case, why wouldn't you have the stiffer and more handsome E92?).

[Bungleaio]

You don't half talk a load of bks.

[flatso]

RoverP6B said:

Also, despite it being a foot longer and a fair bit wider than my E39, I couldn't fit my bike in it, not anyhow. It goes into the E39 with no problems whatsoever. The F10's boot is actually a lot narrower than the E39's. God knows what all that dead space is for. I think the next purchase I make will be a Mercedes E-class estate...

That remains a mystery on most modern cars, not just saloons, but even more blatantly estates. It is absolutely ridiculous how small the boot space has gotten in most estates. The Citroen C5 is a lovely product, the F11 is great but for a family they are a joke...you put in a folded baby buggy and there is absolutely no room left over for anything else. Its called the Insignia Syndrome.

[RoverP6B]

Bungleaio said:

You don't half talk a load of bks.

The usual ad hominem attacks, I see. E93s flex, fact. Even my E39 Touring can be felt to flex at times over some of the worst rutted off-camber roads round here.

[Bungleaio]

Of course the e93 has some flex, it has no roof. However it's far from flexes like hell.

I bow to your superior experience of having a passenger ride in an M3, once. I've only driven about 15'000 miles in my 325. Maybe they only fit the stiffening kit to the lower cars in the range

[ecs0set]

Matt99man said:

Does the griff completely smash the 335 on performance?

With a stopwatch and with a rolling start? Possibly not "smash". The 335 piles on speed at a surprising rate.

However the feel of the car and the sensation of speed varies as much between the 335 and the Griff as between the 335 and an Austin Metro!