Considering E46 318 or 320

[Torquey]

Hello.

I'm deeply considering buying an E46, either a 318 or 320. 2002-2003 reg.

What are people opinions on these in terms of reliablility? Obviously the 320 would be nippier but doing a little research these use VANOS dont they??

Does the 318/316 (4 pots) use VANOS to?

Would I benefit from going for a slightly less powerful engine and not having VANOS? (sorry I know that shouldnt be asked on pistonheads!)
After how many miles are these likely to fail??

I've spotted a 320 with 60k miles but i'm not too sure it has FULL service history, although it certainly has some. Should I stay clear??
I understand the VANOS problem is related to oil changes/servicing.

Many thanks

[PJR]

I'd definitely go for the 320i ! 6 pots are what BMW always did best. In fairness, they never made a bad engine, regardless of how many cylinders it does or doesn't have. Still, the 6 pots are absolutely sublime, and a world apart from their 4 pot motors (318's are 4 cylinder, I don't know of they have vanos or not)
If I remember rightly, the later E46 320's had a 2.2 litre 6 making 170bhp? Instead of 2.0 and 150bhp (Can someone confirm?).. Either way, it will be a pretty nice car to cruise about it. No rocketship, granted, but a nice drive for sure.

P,

[bazking69]

6 cylinder is the way forward. Tried and tested bulletproof engine and in a different league to the 4 cylinders. Even a 320 will give adequate performance.

Don't worry about Vanos problems, it's largely applicable to the 3.2 M engines in the E36s. Just make sure the car has a FSH and drives well and mileage isn't really a problem.

I'd pay more attention to how it drives and the history/paperwork. Worn suspension and steering components are the biggest issue. If it doesn't drive totally tight and straight and free of knocks or play walk away. A good one should feel utterly tight even at 100k plus.

[Phugoid]

The 2.0 4 cyl is a peppy wee thing so I wouldn't discount it. Likely to give better MPG and in my experience, absolutely bullet-proof.

[Maruchino]

I went for the 320 purely for the engine sound alone, the general consensus however is that a 330 is no real dearer to run than a 320 but gives much better performance.

[AliMc99]

320 is super smooth but no quicker than a 318 (assuming the 318 is the 150bhp 2.0ltr). 320 fuel consumption is probably worse in real life than a 325/330. If I were you I'd either stick with the 318 for economy or stretch to a 325.