RE: BMW launches 320si
Discussion
the problem here is there selling this car on the back of touring car glory, and all you get is another 20 odd hp some wide tyres and a sports suspension its a big missed oportunity and if you stand it next to a racer the car needs to have somthing to shout about.
the ford racing puma was another example take the puma add the word racing to it get everyone all excited then deliver a good car no doubt but one thats a big anticlimax, if bmw had just forgot about the racing, tacked sport on the end everyone would be happy but they bang the drum on a homologation special and then deliver basically a gti trim spec
the ford racing puma was another example take the puma add the word racing to it get everyone all excited then deliver a good car no doubt but one thats a big anticlimax, if bmw had just forgot about the racing, tacked sport on the end everyone would be happy but they bang the drum on a homologation special and then deliver basically a gti trim spec
What's up wth you guys?????????
If you want one buy one, if not then stop bitching.
It's good that manufacturers at least put a bit of effort into this and realise the value of motorsport. Some threads moan about not enough manufacturers in BTCC, WTCC etc etc. so at least this is a pro-active manufacturer.
Give them some credit for trying to please motorsport fans instead of the boring ethos of rep and business drivers.
Soapbox now on eb*y!!!!
If you want one buy one, if not then stop bitching.
It's good that manufacturers at least put a bit of effort into this and realise the value of motorsport. Some threads moan about not enough manufacturers in BTCC, WTCC etc etc. so at least this is a pro-active manufacturer.
Give them some credit for trying to please motorsport fans instead of the boring ethos of rep and business drivers.
Soapbox now on eb*y!!!!
wilbo said:
It's good that manufacturers at least put a bit of effort into this and realise the value of motorsport. Some threads moan about not enough manufacturers in BTCC, WTCC etc etc. so at least this is a pro-active manufacturer.
Give them some credit for trying to please motorsport fans instead of the boring ethos of rep and business drivers.
They're not trying to please motorsport fans, they're trying to use the motorsport halo to sell a cheap-to-make limited edition that will allow them to homologate some new engine parts to make their new WTCC car more effective in 2006.
Agreed on pro-active though...just seems like it's a half-baked way of doing things. Compare this effort to the publicity surrounding the Sierra Cossie, for example...which was a monster of a road car first, and a monster of a track-car second.
PS - benno - diesel vs petrol, you forgot that little whirry thing that compresses the air going into the diesel. Turbo's DO tend to help produce more power and torque!
That's rubbish Havoc 
BMW are required, for homologation purposes, to build a number of production cars on which the racer is based.
They are not therefore trying to sell 320i's using the 'halo effect' of motorsport are they? What they are doing is complying with regulations - nothing more.
What's more, not everyone can afford an M3 can they? If you were in the market for a 320i M Sport and had the option of the 320si, which would you buy???
If BMW had put more 'effort' into the car, it would have cost (perhaps significantly) more. How many people would then pay significantly more for a 2 litre model (when at the same price they had the option of a 'big six')??.
I suggest people stop being so cynical. If you don't like it, don't buy it. As I have said, for people in the market for a standard 320i M Sport this car could represent excellent value and the opportunity to buy something a little different.
For a major manufacturer to offer the buyer of its lesser models something like this is rare (it is normally the top of the range cars that get all the glory). Afterall, the changes over the standard 2 litre engine are hardly insignificant are they - I would suggest that the numbers on the spec sheet are only half the story - the 'character' of the car is likely to be vastly different. Good on you BMW.
Andy
BMW are required, for homologation purposes, to build a number of production cars on which the racer is based.
They are not therefore trying to sell 320i's using the 'halo effect' of motorsport are they? What they are doing is complying with regulations - nothing more.
What's more, not everyone can afford an M3 can they? If you were in the market for a 320i M Sport and had the option of the 320si, which would you buy???
If BMW had put more 'effort' into the car, it would have cost (perhaps significantly) more. How many people would then pay significantly more for a 2 litre model (when at the same price they had the option of a 'big six')??.
I suggest people stop being so cynical. If you don't like it, don't buy it. As I have said, for people in the market for a standard 320i M Sport this car could represent excellent value and the opportunity to buy something a little different.
For a major manufacturer to offer the buyer of its lesser models something like this is rare (it is normally the top of the range cars that get all the glory). Afterall, the changes over the standard 2 litre engine are hardly insignificant are they - I would suggest that the numbers on the spec sheet are only half the story - the 'character' of the car is likely to be vastly different. Good on you BMW.
Andy
hallmark said:
"Priaulx was crowned FIA World Touring Car Champion at the final round of the championship in Macau, China on 20 November, the first British world champion since Damon Hill in 1996."
What about Richard Burns?
I agree totally here, a particularly poor ommision since Richard has just passed away, bad job there ph.
Andy,
1) Read the second half of the sentence you so roundly criticise
2) 'good value' has never been a word I'd associate with BM's. 25k, BEFORE options, for a car with only 173bhp and tyres far too large to make the handling anything but dull and understeer-ridden, regardless of the "M-sport" suspension? (And don't BMW harp on about how the handling of their cars is supposed to be the best thing about them?) That's not good value, that's a joke.
3) 'changes hardly significant over ordinary 2-litre'. Probably because that's a lacklustre engine in the first place (certainly for an 'executive' car) trying to haul around 1,400kg (far too overweight) of car.
4) Don't applaud yourself, it makes you come across as a pratt!
You're probably not reading anymore, but FWIW I don't have anything against BMW as a company, but I do feel this isn't anywhere near as special as they're trying to make out...and the tyres are just unnecessary. The whole reason the E30 M3 (their last revvy 4-pot) is such a great car is that it wasn't over-burdened with unnecessary weight and that the engineers had deliberately 'balanced' everything - grip, power, brakes, control weighting.
1) Read the second half of the sentence you so roundly criticise
2) 'good value' has never been a word I'd associate with BM's. 25k, BEFORE options, for a car with only 173bhp and tyres far too large to make the handling anything but dull and understeer-ridden, regardless of the "M-sport" suspension? (And don't BMW harp on about how the handling of their cars is supposed to be the best thing about them?) That's not good value, that's a joke.
3) 'changes hardly significant over ordinary 2-litre'. Probably because that's a lacklustre engine in the first place (certainly for an 'executive' car) trying to haul around 1,400kg (far too overweight) of car.
4) Don't applaud yourself, it makes you come across as a pratt!
You're probably not reading anymore, but FWIW I don't have anything against BMW as a company, but I do feel this isn't anywhere near as special as they're trying to make out...and the tyres are just unnecessary. The whole reason the E30 M3 (their last revvy 4-pot) is such a great car is that it wasn't over-burdened with unnecessary weight and that the engineers had deliberately 'balanced' everything - grip, power, brakes, control weighting.
havoc said:
Andy,
The whole reason the E30 M3 (their last revvy 4-pot) is such a great car is that it wasn't over-burdened with unnecessary weight and that the engineers had deliberately 'balanced' everything - grip, power, brakes, control weighting.
The reason the car was like that is that they had to build 5000 of them to comply with the FIA homologation rules at the time. The group A, and to a greater extent, Group N cars could not be modified as much as the race cars are now, so the street cars had to include a good amount of the good traits.
It is indeed unfortunate that the rules allow so much modification or we would be looking at a 320si with a lot more sporting prowess now...much like my old Sport Evolution.
I would like to think that BMW could have given us a bit more grunt and a lot less weight, but will reserve judgement until I get to drive one of these little beasties. I have a feeling that the specifications don't quite tell the whole story.
I can see the argument here from both sides (creosote moment....).
As an e30 M3 owner I can see why a lot of people are slightly dissapointed with the spec. Yes the driving experience may be great (after all the e30 wasn't that powerful, but the sum of the parts was great), but the underlying feeling is that the 320si's spec may not really be enough to get the juices flowing. I would love to see a nice screamy 4 pot in a light chassis with big brakes (not the sliding caliper rubbish most Bm's get endowed with), but I think BMW have cooked their goose in this department. The E46 and E90 shapes don't lend themselves well to small wheels as body wise they are big, hence why they will be supplied with massive wheels because BMW know people are more likely to buy them, with great big 18's or 19's.
It's fashion against function, accountant v engineer, and at the end of the day the accountants almost always end up winning.
As an e30 M3 owner I can see why a lot of people are slightly dissapointed with the spec. Yes the driving experience may be great (after all the e30 wasn't that powerful, but the sum of the parts was great), but the underlying feeling is that the 320si's spec may not really be enough to get the juices flowing. I would love to see a nice screamy 4 pot in a light chassis with big brakes (not the sliding caliper rubbish most Bm's get endowed with), but I think BMW have cooked their goose in this department. The E46 and E90 shapes don't lend themselves well to small wheels as body wise they are big, hence why they will be supplied with massive wheels because BMW know people are more likely to buy them, with great big 18's or 19's.
It's fashion against function, accountant v engineer, and at the end of the day the accountants almost always end up winning.
rlk500 said:
It's fashion against function, accountant v engineer, and at the end of the day the accountants almost always end up winning.
Oi! I'm an accountant and I hate oversize rims. When I worked for Jag those of us who were car-enthusiasts in Finance always blamed Marketing for making such a big deal of big bling rims...oh, and the concept designers who always give the sketches the silliest huge alloys.
Finance just measure and tell the directors what brings in the money...it's marketing and design that have created the big-rim fashion, not us!
rlk500 said:
Ahhhhh.....but it is.....It's your duty to inform the directors that centre lock mag wheels, huge AP brakes, carbon panels and a screaming 300bhp n/a engine is what really brings the money in......then be creative with the accounts....
How did you find out why I had to leave Jag!?!
reading through the post i see a lot of bitching about the 170 odd bhp but no one has mentioned torque? 0-60mph might not be the fastest thing about but once moving it's torque that makes quite a difference!
a civic type R as mention has 197bhp but one of the weakest torque figures i've seen! plus FWD and RWD the BMW would win as the type R goes all tripod when going fast into a bend if anyone say tiff ragging it on top gear a while back.
My old MR2 Turbo wasted a S2000 even though on paper my MR2 was 225bhp and the S2000 makes what 245bhp? the guy just wasn't in the rev range and i only droped 1 gear, instant turbo torque and gone! easily left it!
i'm a jap car nut myself but will be driving a 328 coupe BMW soon. i picked the BMW because it wasn't a slow dull saloon/coupe but because it was RWD, handled nicely and i could either relax or give it a bit of stick down a B road and still be fun! it won't beat an elise ect but it's a better every day car i feel. the MR2 Turbo could be a bit to hardcore everyday and just feels like it wants to red line and piss off down the road all the time!
would i have a 320si hmmm probably not but i can see why it might appeal to a few people out there!
arguing what will beat it is neither here or there unless on a track and really you wouldn't be picking a FWD Type R Civic then would you?
a civic type R as mention has 197bhp but one of the weakest torque figures i've seen! plus FWD and RWD the BMW would win as the type R goes all tripod when going fast into a bend if anyone say tiff ragging it on top gear a while back.
My old MR2 Turbo wasted a S2000 even though on paper my MR2 was 225bhp and the S2000 makes what 245bhp? the guy just wasn't in the rev range and i only droped 1 gear, instant turbo torque and gone! easily left it!
i'm a jap car nut myself but will be driving a 328 coupe BMW soon. i picked the BMW because it wasn't a slow dull saloon/coupe but because it was RWD, handled nicely and i could either relax or give it a bit of stick down a B road and still be fun! it won't beat an elise ect but it's a better every day car i feel. the MR2 Turbo could be a bit to hardcore everyday and just feels like it wants to red line and piss off down the road all the time!
would i have a 320si hmmm probably not but i can see why it might appeal to a few people out there!
arguing what will beat it is neither here or there unless on a track and really you wouldn't be picking a FWD Type R Civic then would you?
GTS,
Couple of points:-
1) This car is £8-9k more than a CTR...so it should be a lot better drive (wait and see if it is!) - we're looking at engines. And as for torque, the CTR's peak torque is ~150lb/ft - is it THAT different in the BM? Yes you need to rev the engine more, but the gearing is shorter too, so it's more readily accessible. What was it someone said in defence of the BM - "look at more than the headline numbers"?!?
2) S2000 vs MR2 tubby...your MR2 is/was lighter than an S2k, so bhp/tonne would be similar. And your engine was turbo'd, meaning a lot more torque and readily-accessible power. But MR2 tubby's are not renowned for their engine's being bulletproof...whereas the S2k lump is. And anyway, what've those two cars got to do with the BM/CTR debate?!?
Couple of points:-
1) This car is £8-9k more than a CTR...so it should be a lot better drive (wait and see if it is!) - we're looking at engines. And as for torque, the CTR's peak torque is ~150lb/ft - is it THAT different in the BM? Yes you need to rev the engine more, but the gearing is shorter too, so it's more readily accessible. What was it someone said in defence of the BM - "look at more than the headline numbers"?!?
2) S2000 vs MR2 tubby...your MR2 is/was lighter than an S2k, so bhp/tonne would be similar. And your engine was turbo'd, meaning a lot more torque and readily-accessible power. But MR2 tubby's are not renowned for their engine's being bulletproof...whereas the S2k lump is. And anyway, what've those two cars got to do with the BM/CTR debate?!?
Raph C said:
Guys,
"Homologation special"
This is all this car is.
The best cars I've owned were the homologation specials: Porsche 911 SCRS, E30 M3, E30 M3 Sport Evolution, M3 GT, Clio Williams, Lancer Evo 6 TM, Clio Ragnotti.
Some of them had only subtle modifications from the basic model, but they sure were special to drive. I really hope that there is something special about the 320si.
gingerpaul said:
Does anyone know how much lighter this car is than a standard car?
Nope, no-one does. At least not in this thread. That's why they're all spouting bollox about how heavy it is.
It's 1,275 kg without driver or fuel, or 2,800 lb in the old money. A regular 320i is 50 kg heavier. In case anyone doesn't know, BMW held the weight of the E90 down as a priority; on average they are fractionally *lighter* than the cars they replace. Does anyone care? Probably not, since to most the E90 will be a repmobile, not a sports car, or even a sporting saloon by dint of the way it goes round the bendy bits between the straights.
What enthusiasts should bemoan, if they must, is what it misses: big brakes, LSD (an unforgivable omission IMHO) and appropriately sized wheels and tyres instead of the usual parts-bin bling. 255/35 R18 on standard heavy alloys impresses no-one, except people who forget the quality and like to feel the width. But unfortunately the latter now outnumber the former by a huge margin, and ya gotta go where the money is.
I certainly look forward to at least trying out this apparently heavyweight, underpowered POS. By comparison, here are the EU kerb weights of similar cars:
Audi A4 2.0Tq 1,530 kg
M-B C200K 1,465 kg
Honda Accord 2.4 1,435 kg
Alfa 159 1,490 kg
Just to reiterate, the 320si is 1,275 kg, or 1,350 kg measured the European way with a 75 kg allowance for driver and fuel. Honda Civic Type-r? A WHOPPING 85 kg lighter, at 1,265 kg all up. Next !
EDIT: It's also cheaper than the regular 320i M-Sport, which is nothing more than a 320i with special trim.
>> Edited by andy_t0 on Thursday 1st December 13:58
>> Edited by andy_t0 on Thursday 1st December 13:59
andy_t0 said:
[quote=gingerpaul]
What enthusiasts should bemoan, if they must, is what it misses: big brakes, LSD (an unforgivable omission IMHO) and appropriately sized wheels and tyres instead of the usual parts-bin bling. 255/35 R18 on standard heavy alloys impresses no-one, except people who forget the quality and like to feel the width. But unfortunately the latter now outnumber the former by a huge margin, and ya gotta go where the money is.
BMW are rather parsimonious in the braking department. Look at the CSL and M5!
I believe they are taking the cheap way out by using the electronic nannies to attempt do the job of the LSD.
And yes, the wheels and tyres are way too big.
Good news on the weight front.
>> Edited by hammerwerfer on Saturday 3rd December 23:55
Well I think I might get one of these, I was looking at a 320i M-Sport for my company car anyway so this is a bit quicker, a bit better looking (wheels) and about the same price.
Don't forget not everyone is looking for last 1/10th of a second on their way to work/the shops/a meeting!
Don't forget not everyone is looking for last 1/10th of a second on their way to work/the shops/a meeting!
Gassing Station | BMW General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff