RE: SOTW: BMW 318is

[AV12]

Agreeing with cmoose (shock!) again here. The factor is traction (obviously with correct tyre), but I had Bridgestone RE050's on mine and the grip was great.

The thing is the 328 will hit 60 within a couple tenths consistently, FWD simply cannot match the rear shove, consistency and neutral stance of that chassis. A very well engineered thing.

[T16OLE]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Well if you just dismiss stats, what are you comparing, the 182 seems very similar (if not quicker) to 100 than my 330. I have owned both & know what they are like day to day, and the stats come down on the side of the Clio. Not really sure what you are basing your argument on?

[T16OLE]

Fair point, quote the stats from the same magazine which show the 182 cup is slower then

[Tango13]

AV12 said:

I had said 328i rated at 209bhp, 215lb/ft. Brilliant engine.

I had a 328 coupe and it always felt (by my highly inaccurate seat of the pants dyno) that it was punching above its weight with regards claimed vs actual power output.

[T16OLE]

Tango13 said:

I had a 328 coupe and it always felt (by my highly inaccurate seat of the pants dyno) that it was punching above its weight with regards claimed vs actual power output.

Nice to see we are dealing with the Facts! Don`t get me wrong though I think that E36 & E46`s are both Great cars. My 330ci is the best car I have ever owned.

[ADM06]

Who's 328 actually has a standard engine though? It is so cheap and easy too give yourself an extra 25 - 30bhp (and more with more time and money) that you'd be silly to leave it as standard.

[Smike]

AV12 said:

If we're talking performance numbers; the 328i rated at 0-60 6.6sec. I believe Autocar got 5.9 sec from a Touring back in the 90s.

It was 6.1 seconds in the road test of 14/06/95 by the way

[ADM06]

Smike said:

It was 6.1 seconds in the road test of 14/06/95 by the way

I think all BMW's figures were based on changing to third before you hit 60. You don't need to do this, it was a bit daft of them to be so conservative with the figures. I'm sure some manufacturers prefer to exaggerate to make their cars more appealing.

[ADM06]

Smike said:

It was 6.1 seconds in the road test of 14/06/95 by the way

I think all BMW's figures were based on changing to third before you hit 60. You don't need to do this, it was a bit daft of them to be so conservative with the figures. I'm sure some manufacturers prefer to exaggerate to make their cars more appealing.

[Smike]

T16OLE said:

Fair point, quote the stats from the same magazine which show the 182 cup is slower then

Here are the Autocar test figures for 3 328i E36 variants ( all manual box ) and a Clio 182

Car	0-60	0-100	Max speed	Kerb weight	Test Date
328 saloon	6.4	17.4	143	1350kg	30/08/95
328 Touring	6.1	17.1	139	1391kg	14/06/95
328 cabrio	6.6	17.9	139	1448kg	26/07/95
Clio 182	6.3	17.0	138	1090kg	16/03/04

[KM666]

Kawasicki said:

What is the kerb weight of a 20 year old 318is? It's 1240kg.

Going by your own logic the bmw has a high wheel power to weight than a citroen vtr, no?

Only according to Carfolio. That wonderful website that makes you look foolish for blindly quoting any outragous figure it comes out with.
Try using autotrader/parkers/autocar. If 2 of 3 agree your on the right tracks.

Edited by KM666 on Saturday 11th June 00:06

[KM666]

Colonial said:

Boobonman said:

I wouldn't waste your time. I wouldn't be suprised if KM666 was younger than most, and perhaps a Clio RSI 8-valve is the most potent car he has driven passengered in.

Well, his dad has one, and it is quick when he gets driven home from the local comprehensive!

Not suprising response from BMW fans, same as VAG boys, ignore empirical facts and start on personal attacks! From the fan camp of a brand whos initials can make up any number of insulting phrases....

Comprehensive... When were you last in England? the 70s?

Re Cmoose if your so confident in the abilities of a 330i jump in one, pop on down to a cliosport trackday or airfield meet and try getting within 2 seconds of the times Clios will post.

BMWs being able to achieve 130mph or whatever is really irrelivent, for one its illegal (tho you wouldnt know it judging by the Krautside line) and secondly no skill whatsoever is involved in keeping your foot pressed to the floor whilst holding your car in a straight line (hense all the 1.9TDI audis cruising along at over 100), how that is considered a measure of a cars abilities is beyond me, its purely down to gearing. If you could bang a beemer 'box in a clio !Shock Horror! it'd probably achieve the same theoretical top speed.

Edited by KM666 on Saturday 11th June 00:04

Edited by KM666 on Saturday 11th June 00:18

Edited by KM666 on Saturday 11th June 00:19

[Smike]

Smike said:

T16OLE said:

Fair point, quote the stats from the same magazine which show the 182 cup is slower then

Here are the Autocar test figures for 3 328i E36 variants ( all manual box ) and a Clio 182

Car	0-60	0-100	Max speed	Kerb weight	Test Date
328 saloon	6.4	17.4	143	1350kg	30/08/95
328 Touring	6.1	17.1	139	1391kg	14/06/95
328 cabrio	6.6	17.9	139	1448kg	26/07/95
Clio 182	6.3	17.0	138	1090kg	16/03/04

EVO mag timed an E46 330 manual and a 182 Trophy

Car	0-60	0-100	Max speed	Kerb weight
330 E46	5.9	17.0	155	1510kg
182 Trophy	6.6	17.3	140	1090kg

[Colonial]

KM666 said:

Not suprising response from BMW fans, same as VAG boys, ignore empirical facts and start on personal attacks! From the fan camp of a brand whos initials can make up any number of insulting phrases....

Comprehensive... When were you last in England? the 70s?

Re Cmoose if your so confident in the abilities of a 330i jump in one, pop on down to a cliosport trackday or airfield meet and try getting within 2 seconds of the times Clios will post.

BMWs being able to achieve 130mph or whatever is really irrelivent, for one its illegal (tho you wouldnt know it judging by the Krautside line) and secondly no skill whatsoever is involved in keeping your foot pressed to the floor whilst holding your car in a straight line (hense all the 1.9TDI audis cruising along at over 100), how that is considered a measure of a cars abilities is beyond me, its purely down to gearing. If you could bang a beemer 'box in a clio !Shock Horror! it'd probably achieve the same theoretical top speed.

Edited by KM666 on Saturday 11th June 00:04

Edited by KM666 on Saturday 11th June 00:18

Edited by KM666 on Saturday 11th June 00:19

No fan boy. Just think you are talking out your arse.

[Kawasicki]

KM666 said:

Kawasicki said:

What is the kerb weight of a 20 year old 318is? It's 1240kg.

Going by your own logic the bmw has a high wheel power to weight than a citroen vtr, no?

Only according to Carfolio. That wonderful website that makes you look foolish for blindly quoting any outragous figure it comes out with.
Try using autotrader/parkers/autocar. If 2 of 3 agree your on the right tracks.

Edited by KM666 on Saturday 11th June 00:06

no no no, I'm looking at a photocopy of legal documents (Typenshein) for my old 1992 318is and it has 1240 kg right beside certified DIN kerb weight. Carfolio might of also their weights from the certified weight of the vehicle, cause that would make sense!

Here are the DIN (Kerb with fuel tank 90% full!) weights for all E36 from 1994

316i: 1190
318i: 1205
318is: 1240
320i: 1315
325i: 1330
325td: 1335
325tds: 1350

316i Coupé: 1190
318is Coupé: 1240
320i Coupé: 1315
325i Coupé: 1330
M3 3.0 Coupé: 1460

325i Cabrio: 1450

Please don't tell me you have made the schoolboy error of quoting the EU kerb weight which also includes a 68 kg driver and 7 kg luggage.

So yes, carfolio quote the certified kerb weight. Now who looks foolish?

PS. This is fun!

[TameRacingDriver]

I used to have a 182 and now have a 328i. Its true that from 0-100 there would be little in it although I'd say for most the BMW would be quicker off the line as its just easier to get a clean launch off the line. Day to day the BMW would be quicker as there is simply a lot more torque and midrange overtaking power. Above 100 and BMW will walk away. On the twistiest there's really nothing in it trust me. As an overall ownership experience for me the BMW is in a different league. Much more comfortable, better looking, more refined, much nicer engine, rwd and IMO handles better and still a hoot to drive. Clios are quite overrated IMO.

[KM666]

Kawasicki said:

KM666 said:

Kawasicki said:

What is the kerb weight of a 20 year old 318is? It's 1240kg.

Going by your own logic the bmw has a high wheel power to weight than a citroen vtr, no?

Only according to Carfolio. That wonderful website that makes you look foolish for blindly quoting any outragous figure it comes out with.
Try using autotrader/parkers/autocar. If 2 of 3 agree your on the right tracks.

Edited by KM666 on Saturday 11th June 00:06

no no no, I'm looking at a photocopy of legal documents (Typenshein) for my old 1992 318is and it has 1240 kg right beside certified DIN kerb weight. Carfolio might of also their weights from the certified weight of the vehicle, cause that would make sense!

Here are the DIN (Kerb with fuel tank 90% full!) weights for all E36 from 1994

316i: 1190
318i: 1205
318is: 1240
320i: 1315
325i: 1330
325td: 1335
325tds: 1350

316i Coupé: 1190
318is Coupé: 1240
320i Coupé: 1315
325i Coupé: 1330
M3 3.0 Coupé: 1460

325i Cabrio: 1450

Please don't tell me you have made the schoolboy error of quoting the EU kerb weight which also includes a 68 kg driver and 7 kg luggage.

So yes, carfolio quote the certified kerb weight. Now who looks foolish?

PS. This is fun!

And where is PH based? 'GASP' not the EU? So where does carfolio get the extra 70kg from that makes up the 1025kg quoted weight of a clio rsi and where did it loose 6bhp? or is that part of the charming non EU madness?

Im sure your 1240kg BMW must fly without a driver!

[KM666]

Colonial said:

No fan boy. Just think you are talking out your arse.

Which is why you've owned 2? A dazzling contribution there.

[Kawasicki]

KM666 said:

Kawasicki said:

KM666 said:

Kawasicki said:

What is the kerb weight of a 20 year old 318is? It's 1240kg.

Going by your own logic the bmw has a high wheel power to weight than a citroen vtr, no?

Only according to Carfolio. That wonderful website that makes you look foolish for blindly quoting any outragous figure it comes out with.
Try using autotrader/parkers/autocar. If 2 of 3 agree your on the right tracks.

Edited by KM666 on Saturday 11th June 00:06

no no no, I'm looking at a photocopy of legal documents (Typenshein) for my old 1992 318is and it has 1240 kg right beside certified DIN kerb weight. Carfolio might of also their weights from the certified weight of the vehicle, cause that would make sense!

Here are the DIN (Kerb with fuel tank 90% full!) weights for all E36 from 1994

316i: 1190
318i: 1205
318is: 1240
320i: 1315
325i: 1330
325td: 1335
325tds: 1350

316i Coupé: 1190
318is Coupé: 1240
320i Coupé: 1315
325i Coupé: 1330
M3 3.0 Coupé: 1460

325i Cabrio: 1450

Please don't tell me you have made the schoolboy error of quoting the EU kerb weight which also includes a 68 kg driver and 7 kg luggage.

So yes, carfolio quote the certified kerb weight. Now who looks foolish?

PS. This is fun!

And where is PH based? 'GASP' not the EU? So where does carfolio get the extra 70kg from that makes up the 1025kg quoted weight of a clio rsi and where did it loose 6bhp? or is that part of the charming non EU madness?

Im sure your 1240kg BMW must fly without a driver!

PH is based in the EU. (you might stop wanting to look a bit daft now.)

Lets get straight back to your (incorrect) simple calcs that show the 318is as having less wheel horse power per tonne than a VTR.

Stay focused on your errors please, dig yourself in deeper!

[Jonny_693]

ADM06 said:

Who's 328 actually has a standard engine though? It is so cheap and easy too give yourself an extra 25 - 30bhp (and more with more time and money) that you'd be silly to leave it as standard.