Classic (old, retro) cars for sale £0-5k
Discussion
Devil2575 said:
kiseca said:
Gruber said:
johnnyBv8 said:
rohrl said:
johnnyBv8 said:
Leather and a straight 6, perhaps!
It's a 320i, it has a straight six.
kiseca said:
It was rather slower than the 2L Alfas available at the time. The 2L Opels would have left them for dead, and the 2.0 VWs would have been thereabouts too.
But what equivalent size 2 litre 4 door saloons did VW produce in the 80s? Did the Passat come out at the back end of the 80s?2 litre Opels, again equivalent size, would be the Asconda/Cavalier. The Mk2 Cavalier in normal 2 litre GLSi/CDiform had something like 115 bhp. The SRi130 had more but that was a specific high performance model. The Asconda C had the same engines and certainly wouldn't have left a 320i for dead.
The Alfa 2 litre 16v engine gave the 75 much superior performance but again, this is a performamce model.
The Equivalent 2 litre Sierra certaily wasn't any quicker and the Audi 80 certainly wasn't.
If you compare a 320i with a 2 litre hatch back from the size catagory below then i'd agree, but an equivalent sized saloon with 2v per cylinder head then there isn't going to be a massive difference in it. Not enough for any car to be leaving another for dead that's for sure.
The hatches from the time weren't a size category below an E30. There was more space in the back of a Jetta / Monza / Kadett, or indeed a Giulietta (never been in a 75) than in an E30. The Passat was the next size class up. The Opels with the 2L 8v engine were leaving everything standing. The 16v red top just made them faster still.
kiseca said:
It was rather slower than the 2L Alfas available at the time. The 2L Opels would have left them for dead, and the 2.0 VWs would have been thereabouts too.
It is the only 2.0 6 pot of the lot, but it fares well on paper performance wise.BMW M50B20 - 110kW / 148bhp
VW R4 1984cc 16V -110kW / 148bhp
Alfa 1995cc 8V twinspark - 109kw / 146bhp
Mercedes M111.940 1998cc 16V - 100kW / 136hp
Opel 20SEH 1998cc - 97kW / 130hp
kiseca said:
The hatches from the time weren't a size category below an E30. There was more space in the back of a Jetta / Monza / Kadett, or indeed a Giulietta (never been in a 75) than in an E30. The Passat was the next size class up.
That's true.190E or Audi 80 were it's national peers. Both have less performance in 2.0 form.
V12 AMG said:
It is the only 2.0 6 pot of the lot, but it fares well on paper performance wise.
BMW M50B20 - 110kW / 148bhp
VW R4 1984cc 16V -110kW / 148bhp
Alfa 1995cc 8V twinspark - 109kw / 146bhp
Mercedes M111.940 1998cc 16V - 100kW / 136hp
Opel 20SEH 1998cc - 97kW / 130hp
But the M20B20 12 valve motor was fitted to the E30, so only 125hp.BMW M50B20 - 110kW / 148bhp
VW R4 1984cc 16V -110kW / 148bhp
Alfa 1995cc 8V twinspark - 109kw / 146bhp
Mercedes M111.940 1998cc 16V - 100kW / 136hp
Opel 20SEH 1998cc - 97kW / 130hp
The 148hp M50 24 valve motor arrived later, in the E36...
BGarside said:
But the M20B20 12 valve motor was fitted to the E30, so only 125hp.
The 148hp M50 24 valve motor arrived later, in the E36...
Right you are, 95kW /127 hp.The 148hp M50 24 valve motor arrived later, in the E36...
I just selected 1992 320i on autodata without checking to see exactly which car I had selected.
As stated above the comparisons are for the most part fitted to hot variants of cars such as the Golf GTI etc...
kiseca said:
The hatches from the time weren't a size category below an E30. There was more space in the back of a Jetta / Monza / Kadett, or indeed a Giulietta (never been in a 75) than in an E30. The Passat was the next size class up. The Opels with the 2L 8v engine were leaving everything standing. The 16v red top just made them faster still.
But you're talking about hot hatches and then comparing them too a comfort oriented saloon. Regardless of space in the back, an E30 has more in common with a Cavalier/Asconda than it does an Astra/Kadett hatch with a 2 litre 130 bhp engine. The cars that the 320i was competeing with were not a great deal, if at all quicker. Saying a Kadett has more space in the back misses the point, not least because the E30 has a big boot stuck on the back and is longer than an Astra/Kadett hatch.
The 16v red top was again the high performance version.
Devil2575 said:
kiseca said:
The hatches from the time weren't a size category below an E30. There was more space in the back of a Jetta / Monza / Kadett, or indeed a Giulietta (never been in a 75) than in an E30. The Passat was the next size class up. The Opels with the 2L 8v engine were leaving everything standing. The 16v red top just made them faster still.
But you're talking about hot hatches and then comparing them too a comfort oriented saloon. Regardless of space in the back, an E30 has more in common with a Cavalier/Asconda than it does an Astra/Kadett hatch with a 2 litre 130 bhp engine. 
And who could forget the fabulous Belmont SRi?
Edited by hornetrider on Friday 24th July 14:52
Devil2575 said:
kiseca said:
The hatches from the time weren't a size category below an E30. There was more space in the back of a Jetta / Monza / Kadett, or indeed a Giulietta (never been in a 75) than in an E30. The Passat was the next size class up. The Opels with the 2L 8v engine were leaving everything standing. The 16v red top just made them faster still.
But you're talking about hot hatches and then comparing them too a comfort oriented saloon. Regardless of space in the back, an E30 has more in common with a Cavalier/Asconda than it does an Astra/Kadett hatch with a 2 litre 130 bhp engine. The cars that the 320i was competeing with were not a great deal, if at all quicker. Saying a Kadett has more space in the back misses the point, not least because the E30 has a big boot stuck on the back and is longer than an Astra/Kadett hatch.
The 16v red top was again the high performance version.
Those are the cars the E30 competed against where I come from. Sure it was faster than the Audi 80 or Merc 190 but neither of those were marketed as ultimate driving machines, or with any performance aspirations in mind. Whatever way you cut it, the 320i was not fast, whether it was supposed to be or not, doesn't change that fact. If you wanted handling, the 318 gave similar performance and better balance. If you wanted performance, you had to get the 2.5. The 320i fell between two stools IMO.
EDIT: Heck, from memory I'd say even the 1.8 8v Monza / Belmonte could outrun a 320i.
Edited by kiseca on Friday 24th July 15:33
Yes, the 318i and 323i, later the 325i, were both more rational if you were a private buyer, your best choice depending on which virtues were more important to you
The reason the 320i sold well in the UK was tax-based. Most were company cars when they were new, and company car taxation in those days stepped up sharply at capacities above 1.4 litres and then again above 2.0 litres.
And given the extraordinary extent to which cars were seen as badges of rank within companies in those days, no-one entitled to a 320i would switch down to a 318i: people would think you had been demoted.
The two litre BMWs also did well in Italy for tax reasons, though there they also applied to private ownership.
The reason the 320i sold well in the UK was tax-based. Most were company cars when they were new, and company car taxation in those days stepped up sharply at capacities above 1.4 litres and then again above 2.0 litres.
And given the extraordinary extent to which cars were seen as badges of rank within companies in those days, no-one entitled to a 320i would switch down to a 318i: people would think you had been demoted.
The two litre BMWs also did well in Italy for tax reasons, though there they also applied to private ownership.
kiseca said:
Devil2575 said:
kiseca said:
The hatches from the time weren't a size category below an E30. There was more space in the back of a Jetta / Monza / Kadett, or indeed a Giulietta (never been in a 75) than in an E30. The Passat was the next size class up. The Opels with the 2L 8v engine were leaving everything standing. The 16v red top just made them faster still.
But you're talking about hot hatches and then comparing them too a comfort oriented saloon. Regardless of space in the back, an E30 has more in common with a Cavalier/Asconda than it does an Astra/Kadett hatch with a 2 litre 130 bhp engine. The cars that the 320i was competeing with were not a great deal, if at all quicker. Saying a Kadett has more space in the back misses the point, not least because the E30 has a big boot stuck on the back and is longer than an Astra/Kadett hatch.
The 16v red top was again the high performance version.
Those are the cars the E30 competed against where I come from. Sure it was faster than the Audi 80 or Merc 190 but neither of those were marketed as ultimate driving machines, or with any performance aspirations in mind. Whatever way you cut it, the 320i was not fast, whether it was supposed to be or not, doesn't change that fact. If you wanted handling, the 318 gave similar performance and better balance. If you wanted performance, you had to get the 2.5. The 320i fell between two stools IMO.
EDIT: Heck, from memory I'd say even the 1.8 8v Monza / Belmonte could outrun a 320i.
Edited by kiseca on Friday 24th July 15:33
In SE spec BMWs have always been comfort oriented cars. I don't think you can compare them to the Jetta version of the Golf GTI and the Belmont/Kadett SRI.
I agree though that the 325i or the 318i were a better choice.
Devil2575 said:
kiseca said:
Devil2575 said:
kiseca said:
The hatches from the time weren't a size category below an E30. There was more space in the back of a Jetta / Monza / Kadett, or indeed a Giulietta (never been in a 75) than in an E30. The Passat was the next size class up. The Opels with the 2L 8v engine were leaving everything standing. The 16v red top just made them faster still.
But you're talking about hot hatches and then comparing them too a comfort oriented saloon. Regardless of space in the back, an E30 has more in common with a Cavalier/Asconda than it does an Astra/Kadett hatch with a 2 litre 130 bhp engine. The cars that the 320i was competeing with were not a great deal, if at all quicker. Saying a Kadett has more space in the back misses the point, not least because the E30 has a big boot stuck on the back and is longer than an Astra/Kadett hatch.
The 16v red top was again the high performance version.
Those are the cars the E30 competed against where I come from. Sure it was faster than the Audi 80 or Merc 190 but neither of those were marketed as ultimate driving machines, or with any performance aspirations in mind. Whatever way you cut it, the 320i was not fast, whether it was supposed to be or not, doesn't change that fact. If you wanted handling, the 318 gave similar performance and better balance. If you wanted performance, you had to get the 2.5. The 320i fell between two stools IMO.
EDIT: Heck, from memory I'd say even the 1.8 8v Monza / Belmonte could outrun a 320i.
Edited by kiseca on Friday 24th July 15:33
In SE spec BMWs have always been comfort oriented cars. I don't think you can compare them to the Jetta version of the Golf GTI and the Belmont/Kadett SRI.
I agree though that the 325i or the 318i were a better choice.
What I am saying is whether by design or otherwise, it's a slow car.
golfer19 said:
The cloth seats look nice though and in perfect condition.
Absolutely love this.
golfer19 said:
If that's the correct price then i will sell a kidney to buy it tomorrow...More than likely a mis-print, or scam as has been mentioned already
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff