RE: Spotted: BMW 320Si

[Bionic Billy Nav]

I first came across the Pistonheads enroute to Lemans in 2006 and thought what is that symbol? on the back of that TVR and VX22O? as they came hooning past me (to be fair i was driving rather conservatively) looks cool
and just thought it was a little car club since then i have been a member but not for that long as i used to just check in really on what was going on in the car world, I have been back to Lemans several times since and went to the friday "sunday service" last year it was great and free plus nice to meet fellow Phers have a chat and all that, Now i come on here everyday because Pistonheads really is a great website infact the best car internet forum based site out there it's really informative etc, I like reading the reviews specially ones that are in the classifieds like this because it offers an alternative so i'm like why is there so much negativity in the forums now? i agree with having divided opinions but i'm starting think there just must be alot of unhappy people out there with not alot of good constructive things to say that are basically just jealous of the road testers ffs! i think ppl should just remember this is a light hearted car based internet forum based site aimed at like minded car enthusiasts....I liked it Dan nice one mate...

[JREwing]

excel monkey said:

More of a spiritual succesor to the E30 318iS. That's no bad thing.

I would agree with this comment.

And I wouldn't buy one of these, but it is nice to know that something with these strange quirks (as in, no perceived extra desirability to 99% of customers but somehow more special) is around.

[Urban Sports]

Bionic Billy Nav said:

Lots of irrelevant stuff, followed by; I liked it Dan nice one mate...

Good for you but this is a discussion forum, not everybody has to like the car and if they want to be negative for whatever reason then it only adds to the discussion.

I am a BMW fan but like others have said, this car could and should have been much more. It's an interesting car and quite rare but you can buy much more e90 for the money and have trouble free motoring.

[s m]

braddo said:

s m said:

braddo said:

It would be interesting to see how the 320si would go against, say, 125i/325i around Cadwell for a day.

I've had a little go in two of these and I reckon the smaller 125i would definitely have the measure of the 320si. 125i is basically E46 330i performance

OK. The 1 coupe (which others suggested might be a closer successor to the E30 M3 than a 3 series saloon) isn't much lighter though, is it? I wondered if the bigger brakes and lighter nose of the 320si might close the gap around somewhere twisty like Cadwell.

By saying 'for a day' I was also hypothesising the 320si might be better equipped for an entire day's track driving (bigger brakes, better weight distribution?).

If it had bigger brakes than the 125i it might well make a difference but as both cars run the same sizes ( 300mm all round ) I think the tiny additional weight of the 3 litre car wouldn't be that noticeable. I think the extra 35bhp and more torque would edge it in the 1-series favour though.
There's really only one way to know though!

[g3org3y]

Captain Muppet said:

g3org3y said:

E30 M3 and 2002(tii) apart, BMW 3ers need 6 cyl engines.

Is a 2002 a 3-series? It seems to lack a 3 in the model name.

The original and still the best.

[MC Bodge]

Pistonheads said:

Skins of rice puddings - and, indeed, most hot hatch drivers - have little to fear from its 173hp or 147lb ft of torque. 0-62mph of 8.1 seconds. Nor, in fact, do 320d drivers, who have a couple of tenths and diesel torque in hand.

I've said it before, but just because a lot of cars have similarly decent performance (that it rarely used by most people), it doesn't make those cars "slow"...

[Paul M]

Urban Sports said:

Good for you but this is a discussion forum, not everybody has to like the car and if they want to be negative for whatever reason then it only adds to the discussion.

Agreed.

There seems to be a number of people getting a little over zealous as to what has been criticism and what has been difference of opinion (there is a difference)It's ironic that some of their own comments have actually been critical of others expressing their opinions! So be it because it's all contributed to the reason we all take part here - Discussion..... That's just my opinion

[pSyCoSiS]

Agree with what most others have said...

This is NOT a successor to the E30 M3, rather more akin to the E30 318iS and E36 318iS M-Tech version.

And yes, they are prone to engine issues, so for this sort of money, I'm out.

If you're an avid BMW collector that wants every special edition model in your collection, then fair play!

[ian_touring]

I like the idea that BMW can do some oddball stuff (X6M, anyone??), or a screamer v10 in a exec saloon -E60 M5. This doesn't seem to be either mainstream (320d) or oddball, but somewhere in between. I believe the expression is "falling between two stools". Hmmm, maybe it should be more like the rallye version of the 306 gti6, or Clio's cup or even trophy version?

[Agent Orange]

Urban Sports said:

I am a BMW fan but like others have said, this car could and should have been much more.

But could it though? Other homologated cars were in championships with very broad rules.

What were the rules for WTCC homologation? Would going further have pushed it beyond the rules to qualify for WTCC?

[Urban Sports]

Agent Orange said:

Urban Sports said:

I am a BMW fan but like others have said, this car could and should have been much more.

But could it though? Other homologated cars were in championships with very broad rules.

What were the rules for WTCC homologation? Would going further have pushed it beyond the rules to qualify for WTCC?

For a start it could have been reliable

[JaguarsportXJR]

I don't really see what the issue is here.

Performance enough to put a smile on your face, but not so much that you can't use it on the road. It makes you work for the speed, letting you revel, old school, in revving an engine hard to get the best out of it. Improved brakes and subtle saloon car styling. Finally it's RWD with a light four pot up front to help with the handling. As someone's already said, it sounds a lot like a more everyday (and less hardcore) saloon GT86/BRZ.

Sounds like a nice drivers car to me. First time I've actually fancied owning a BMW for quite some time.

[Crimp a Length!]

Nice car and well priced IMO.

[alexk]

The carbon cylinderhead cover saves ~ 1.2kg and not 10kg !!!

[s m]

I can see from the results that the 320si was obviously very successful in the 2006 season. Thing I found quite interesting was that an Alfa 156 was 3rd placed that year - pretty long in the tooth considering when it came out ( late 90s ).
Did it just fit the regulations really well or were they homologating little tweaks constantly for the car to make it competitive?

[IainW]

s m said:

I can see from the results that the 320si was obviously very successful in the 2006 season. Thing I found quite interesting was that an Alfa 156 was 3rd placed that year - pretty long in the tooth considering when it came out ( late 90s ).
Did it just fit the regulations really well or were they homologating little tweaks constantly for the car to make it competitive?

Yeah it was an evolution of the 2002 car, which spawned the GTA homologation special. Had a facelift in 05 with some tweaks, but it was still competing in 2007 and winning races still.



The WTCC homologation process gets quite complicated when you look at the Chevy Lacetti, which didn't have a special model. But instead had various waivers from the FIA to make it competitive, such as a flat floor, wider track and used an engine which had it's origins in the Vauxhall redtop.

[s m]

IainW said:

s m said:

I can see from the results that the 320si was obviously very successful in the 2006 season. Thing I found quite interesting was that an Alfa 156 was 3rd placed that year - pretty long in the tooth considering when it came out ( late 90s ).
Did it just fit the regulations really well or were they homologating little tweaks constantly for the car to make it competitive?

Yeah it was an evolution of the 2002 car, which spawned the GTA homologation special. Had a facelift in 05 with some tweaks, but it was still competing in 2007 and winning races still.



The WTCC homologation process gets quite complicated when you look at the Chevy Lacetti, which didn't have a special model. But instead had various waivers from the FIA to make it competitive, such as a flat floor, wider track and used an engine which had it's origins in the Vauxhall redtop.

I knew that they used the old XE in the Lacetti - it's an interesting process what they can homologate for some of the older stuff - the Seat Leon seemed to be competitive as well and I wondered if there were many homologation tweaks for that or whether it was competitive by virtue of being newish

[anonymous-user]

Paul M said:

Agreed.

There seems to be a number of people getting a little over zealous as to what has been criticism and what has been difference of opinion (there is a difference)It's ironic that some of their own comments have actually been critical of others expressing their opinions! So be it because it's all contributed to the reason we all take part here - Discussion..... That's just my opinion

If so many people loved the car why wasn't it more of a success? Standard response from people who need to be grumpy about something.

[Olivera]

IainW said:

Yeah it was an evolution of the 2002 car, which spawned the GTA homologation special. Had a facelift in 05 with some tweaks, but it was still competing in 2007 and winning races still.

As far as I am aware the roadgoing GTA had nothing at all to do with the racing car, and was not in any way a homologation model.

[IainW]

Maybe not then. I was under the impression the 156 GTA was homologated for the wider bodywork of the WTCC car.