BMW 3 series don't like water?
Discussion
Fastdruid said:
Stop drinking the BMW kool-aid.
If they 'cared' they'd stop building cars that were overweight. The only thing BMW's have going for them is RWD and even then there is little point in real terms (apart from because race car) until you get to the 300+HP stuff.
How do you explain that photo then? Why's the BMW about a foot lower than the Ford? People seem to like high up cars these days, so why so low?If they 'cared' they'd stop building cars that were overweight. The only thing BMW's have going for them is RWD and even then there is little point in real terms (apart from because race car) until you get to the 300+HP stuff.
You say BMWs are overweight. The new 320d is 1495kg, but the Mondeo 2.0TDci is 1595kg and the Vauxhall Insignia is 1658kg. Why's that then? Still seem overweight to you?
And whilst I'm at it, what on earth has power got to do with a car being RWD or FWD? Why do you think the Mazda MX5 is RWD? Or the Toyota MR2? or the original Lotus Elise with 118bhp? GT86? 200SX? Alfa 75? Mercedes C Class? SLK? Porsche 944, 914, 924, 958? the original Boxster? Marketing?! I've just listed some of the nicest handling cars of our generation, and you think they don't benefit from being RWD because they have less than 300bhp, or less than 200bhp/tonne in the case of a 300bhp 3 series? How do you think a 120bhp MX5 would drive if it was FWD?
PH - total nonsense matters
Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 29th January 22:00
JonnyVTEC said:
Cos ones a C segment car, the other a D... Hence it's larger.
Nope - look at a 5 series next to a Focus, or a 3 series next to a supermini - the size is in the length, but the BMW's still lower.Have you really never noticed this and wondered why?
Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 29th January 21:54
JonnyVTEC said:
Yeah and they are tiny inside thanks to it. Compounded by the RWD package implications....
That's true, and that's one of the main reasons why FWD cars are more common these days. However, the BMW is not lower because it's a smaller car, as you stated! It's lower because the engineers try to make it lower to make it handle better. It's lighter for the same reason. And it's rear wheel drive for the same reason 
Lower, lighter and rear drive but with poor interior space; or higher, heavier and front drive with bags of interior space? Do you think that's just a coincidence in this world where people want space, low price and a high up driving position? BMW aren't stupid and neither are Ford, they both make cars that are very good at what they set out to do; both approaches have upsides and downsides. As I said in my original post, over the years I've regularly driven a range of FWD cars and I have also regularly drive my own BMW daily drivers (alongside my other cars of course, I've had a variety of makes), and I've not experienced BMWs being any more likely to get stuck in water than FWD alternatives. However, being lower is a fair reason to suggest why that might be the case in theory. Seems logical enough to me?
Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 29th January 22:07
RobM77 said:
Fastdruid said:
Stop drinking the BMW kool-aid.
If they 'cared' they'd stop building cars that were overweight. The only thing BMW's have going for them is RWD and even then there is little point in real terms (apart from because race car) until you get to the 300+HP stuff.
How do you explain that photo then? Why's the BMW about a foot lower than the Ford? If they 'cared' they'd stop building cars that were overweight. The only thing BMW's have going for them is RWD and even then there is little point in real terms (apart from because race car) until you get to the 300+HP stuff.
There is 24mm between a 2007-2010 5-series Touring (1488mm) and a 2007-2010 Mondeo Estate (1512mm).
Fastdruid said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vbd3E6tK2U
There is 24mm between a 2007-2010 5-series Touring (1488mm) and a 2007-2010 Mondeo Estate (1512mm).
There's more than that between those 2 cars in the picture.There is 24mm between a 2007-2010 5-series Touring (1488mm) and a 2007-2010 Mondeo Estate (1512mm).
Granted it isn't a foot, but it's significant enough.
RobM77 said:
It's lower because the engineers try to make it lower to make it handle better. It's lighter for the same reason.
Ah yes. Massively lighter.Lets pick two comparable cars
2007-2010 BMW 525i Touring [218hp] 1580Kg
2007-2010 Ford Mondeo 2.5T [216hp] 1600Kg
I can see where they've shaved a massive amount off there to make it handle better.
Patrick Bateman said:
Fastdruid said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vbd3E6tK2U
There is 24mm between a 2007-2010 5-series Touring (1488mm) and a 2007-2010 Mondeo Estate (1512mm).
There's more than that between those 2 cars in the picture.There is 24mm between a 2007-2010 5-series Touring (1488mm) and a 2007-2010 Mondeo Estate (1512mm).
Granted it isn't a foot, but it's significant enough.
(PS I actually agree that the current Mondeo is far too tall but the BMW fanboi "everything they do is for performance/handling" is just crazy)
Fastdruid said:
Probably a 3 series rather than a 5 then so 3-series Touring 2006–08 1455mm so 57mm.
(PS I actually agree that the current Mondeo is far too tall but the BMW fanboi "everything they do is for performance/handling" is just crazy)
Where do you get that height? I get 1418mm from Parker's.(PS I actually agree that the current Mondeo is far too tall but the BMW fanboi "everything they do is for performance/handling" is just crazy)
He's hardly being a fanboi, why else would they make it lower, lighter and RWD even if it means less practicality?
I was just demonstrating a simple fact with a photograph, that's hardly fanboy! You then came up with a whole bunch of irrelevant things which weren't true, like cars need 300bhp to benefit from being RWD (not true - MX5 etc), the photo is actually not true in some weird way, the 3 series is heavier than the Mondeo (not true again) etc etc! And you're calling me a fanboy? righty oh...
RobM77 said:
I'm on my fifth BMW and no, I've never noticed a problem with deep water compared to the countless FWD hire cars I've driven for work. On a purely theoretical note though, it wouldn't surprise me, as unlike most manufacturers, BMW actually care how well a car corners, so they tend to mount things lower than most other manufacturers to get the CofG down. Things like the exhaust pipe, electrical ancillaries connected to the engine etc, are all on average going to be lower on a BMW than most other makes of car, certainly things like Mondeos, Vectras, 407s etc. Park a 3 series next to a mundane FWD car and you'll see that instantly:
Incredible!So BMW care so much about how a car handles and compromise the design so much that their design cannot drive through a puddle?
Back on topic, this is due to poor driving skills (probably too fast) and the potential low air intake on the BMWs.
Well...not sure what the set up but may be linked....my brothers 2012 118d msport....entered standing water about 8" deep...muppet wasn't sure how to cross it instead of high revs and slow speed he tried higher speed as well...good ol bow wave at the front and ....it stalled. Well the intake must be pretty low and easily exposed....worst of all they have written the car off 
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff