BMW 3 series don't like water?
Discussion
Pooh said:
Its about 3 or 4 miles longer to go round it, this road floods quite regularly in the winter and I have driven through it in my XC90 but I do not try it in a normal car unless the flooding is very slight.
What's cheaper 3-4 miles or a new car/insurance costs?99% of people do not know how to cross a water obstacle correctly, I would say most owners do not know what depth their hand book says they can wade.
Most people don't know how deep the flood is and just hope for the best.
TLandCruiser said:
What's cheaper 3-4 miles or a new car/insurance costs?
99% of people do not know how to cross a water obstacle correctly, I would say most owners do not know what depth their hand book says they can wade.
Most people don't know how deep the flood is and just hope for the best.
You are absolutely right, I was not defending their decision to drive through it.99% of people do not know how to cross a water obstacle correctly, I would say most owners do not know what depth their hand book says they can wade.
Most people don't know how deep the flood is and just hope for the best.
RobM77 said:
yes: 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?
I think you are getting confused with ground clearance.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
BMW arn't special by the fact they run the exhaust along the ground.... its easier to put there rather than CofG having any influence!
The engine and VANOS is pretty tall and high, if they were really doing what you suggest they would have Boxer engines. They do push the engine back far though which is more than can be said for Audis!
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.
I think a 60bhp rwd car is more fun to drive than a 60bhp fwd car.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.
I also wouldn't say that BMW only has a rwd advantage, they are also pretty good at making a car that is enjoyable to drive.
JonnyVTEC said:
RobM77 said:
yes: 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?
I think you are getting confused with ground clearance.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
BMW arn't special by the fact they run the exhaust along the ground.... its easier to put there rather than CofG having any influence!
The engine and VANOS is pretty tall and high, if they were really doing what you suggest they would have Boxer engines. They do push the engine back far though which is more than can be said for Audis!
So why aren't Ferrari or Lambourghini using boxer engines then?... BMW design their own engines from scratch for their whole range, and they'll obviously have a number of engineering priorities when it comes to their engines' basic designs.
As I've said before, cars are always a compromise. BMWs simply compromise some practicality elements to run RWD and therefore get less interior space; and they also compromise popularity elements to run their cars lower in order to benefit handling.
As I also said (and here's my original post again), I'm only commenting on this in theory. In practise I've not experienced any tendency for BMWs to get stuck in floods more than other cars - either through personal experience or observation. Howeer, back to the theory: if you drove a thousand cars through puddles then I suspect there would be a correlation between cutouts and the average height of all the components affected by water (obvious fact 1), which on average will be lower in a lower car and higher in a higher car (obvious fact 2). Is that basic statistical principle too much to understand?! And I was only quoting it in theory anyway, not in practise. It was a suggestion at a time when the thread had no hard evidence - a discussion point...
This isn't aimed at you, moreso the people commenting last night, but people on here seem utterly desperate to criticise BMW, largely because all they understand and care about is image. One guy yesterday even claimed the Mondeo was comparable with the 5, not the 3 series, to try and prove his incorrect point that the 3 series was overweight (it's actually lighter than most of its peers) and then quoted the weight of a Mondeo and 5 series to prove his point, even though the 5 was lighter! That's utter desperation, chronic ignorance, and alarming inumeracy. People like that, who seem to make up the majority on PH these days, seemingly care or know very little about handling and what makes a car drive well, which I guess is fair enough, but then they attack long term members of the forum who do care about driving and engineering, using their image based principles to argue totally bizarre points. Apparently RWD is only useful with more than 300bhp? That's something I've heard before on here. So why does the MX5 and the long list of other sub 200bhp cars I listed drive so well, and would it/they drive so well if it/they were FWD, like the Fiat Barchetta? I would have thought Pistonheads would be a refuge from image obsessed mechanically illiterate people, but it seems full of them and I'm very quickly getting tired of it. Gone are the days where I could actually learn something by discussing things on here, meet great new friends, or indeed actually have a discussion without pedantic idiots trying to pick holes in everything I say using laughably flawed arguments. It's just one big mothers meeting now chatting about styling and image... What wheels look best, what colour is best, what car for 'presence' or to be 'different from other people'. Again, not aimed at you, just a general rant about why I'm pretty much through with this forum. I don't mind discussions centered about image and posing, but when people like that just make stuff up in order to interfere with a genuine discussion based on other things, that's just silly.
Edited by RobM77 on Thursday 30th January 12:44
RobM77 said:
then quoted the weight of a Mondeo and 5 series to prove his point, even though the 5 was lighter! That's utter desperation, chronic ignorance, and alarming inumeracy.
You know what I wasn't going to bother but 20Kg is *NOTHING* in the scale of a 1.5ton car, it's less than a 1/3rd of a tank of fuel and I actually compared the weights carelessly, the M-Sport 525i Touring (which is rather closer in kit to the Titanium X I took the Mondeo weight from) is actually 1605Kg so 5Kg more than the Mondeo. The point was never that the Mondeo is lighter, frankly though I drive one I think the Mondeo is vastly overweight, too wide and too tall but all BMW's are overweight and to argue that they place such a premium on performance such as to place the electrics lower down for a lower CoG is just nonsense.
Oh and finally, have a picture of a E90 alternator
They've really mounted that low for performance haven't they.
Fastdruid said:
RobM77 said:
then quoted the weight of a Mondeo and 5 series to prove his point, even though the 5 was lighter! That's utter desperation, chronic ignorance, and alarming inumeracy.
You know what I wasn't going to bother but 20Kg is *NOTHING* in the scale of a 1.5ton car, it's less than a 1/3rd of a tank of fuel and I actually compared the weights carelessly, the M-Sport 525i Touring (which is rather closer in kit to the Titanium X I took the Mondeo weight from) is actually 1605Kg so 5Kg more than the Mondeo. The point was never that the Mondeo is lighter, frankly though I drive one I think the Mondeo is vastly overweight, too wide and too tall but all BMW's are overweight and to argue that they place such a premium on performance such as to place the electrics lower down for a lower CoG is just nonsense.
Oh and finally, have a picture of a E90 alternator
They've really mounted that low for performance haven't they.
And your pic of an alternator - what on earth is that all about?! Mounting an alternator low for better performance? eh? Whoever said that? I said (for the third time) in the absence of anyone coming up with any specifics that early in the thread, that BMWs were noticeably lower than other cars (which they are), so therefore the components are on average going to be lower than other cars (which they will be). I then said that on average there's probably a correlation between average component height in a car and the chance of being affected drving through a flood (which is obvious). Look at my pic on page one and picture those three cars driving through a flood - which one would you bet on without looking any further at the cars' mechanicals etc? You're now pointing out the height of an alternator on a BMW - why are you doing that? If perhaps you'd compared it to the height of the same component on a Vauxhall or Ford then I could see where you were going with that, but even then you'd be missing the point as I'm talking in theory, statistically and on average across the whole car. Do you really not understand that?
Edited by RobM77 on Thursday 30th January 13:22
Fastdruid said:
You know what I wasn't going to bother but 20Kg is *NOTHING* in the scale of a 1.5ton car, it's less than a 1/3rd of a tank of fuel and I actually compared the weights carelessly, the M-Sport 525i Touring (which is rather closer in kit to the Titanium X I took the Mondeo weight from) is actually 1605Kg so 5Kg more than the Mondeo.
The point was never that the Mondeo is lighter, frankly though I drive one I think the Mondeo is vastly overweight, too wide and too tall but all BMW's are overweight and to argue that they place such a premium on performance such as to place the electrics lower down for a lower CoG is just nonsense.
Oh and finally, have a picture of a E90 alternator
They've really mounted that low for performance haven't they.
Are you going to compare a Focus and a 3 series next?The point was never that the Mondeo is lighter, frankly though I drive one I think the Mondeo is vastly overweight, too wide and too tall but all BMW's are overweight and to argue that they place such a premium on performance such as to place the electrics lower down for a lower CoG is just nonsense.
Oh and finally, have a picture of a E90 alternator
They've really mounted that low for performance haven't they.
Just to re-state what FastDruid is saying, he is saying that BMWs are overweight, so therefore if we find the average weight for cars in the same class as each BMW on sale (e.g. 1 series vs Golf, Focus, Auris etc; or 3 series vs Mondeo, Vectra, 407 etc) then the BMW would be heavier than the mean average weight of those cars. I don't have time to do look it all up an do the maths, but I seriously doubt that, given the numbers we've looked up so far. Fastdruid himself has fuelled our argument by demonstrating that a 5 series is actually a similar (slightly lighter) weight to the smaller Mondeo!
My conclusion is that it's complete illogical nonsense fuelled by a desperate hatred of BMW, based purely on their image. If FD just said he didn't like the image of BMW, that would be a perfectly valid statement. Making things up to prove the point though is just odd.
My conclusion is that it's complete illogical nonsense fuelled by a desperate hatred of BMW, based purely on their image. If FD just said he didn't like the image of BMW, that would be a perfectly valid statement. Making things up to prove the point though is just odd.
A few weeks ago, a friend drowned her 5 series estate in a puddle that all other cars managed to get through without any problem - a point that irritated her immensely as she watched them continue through it while waiting to be recovered. She certainly wasn't driving it stupidly yet it sucked up so much water that it's written it off. According to the RAC man, most BMWs have their intakes too low and are very vulnerable to this.
The same day someone else at her work wrote off their brand new 3 series in a big puddle too.
I'm very unimpressed with BMWs. So much for their claimed engineering excellence.
The same day someone else at her work wrote off their brand new 3 series in a big puddle too.
I'm very unimpressed with BMWs. So much for their claimed engineering excellence.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff