RE: New 3 Series Touring revealed
Discussion
E65Ross said:
They are a very strange set of requirements, you aren't fussed about wheels driven, yet you need different 0-62mph times!? You also ask for ridiculously different fuel consumption figures, based upon engine size. So if a 2.1 litre engine does 40mpg you'd be interested in buying it, yet if a 1.9 litre engine, with similar performance figures, does 60mpg, that's not acceptable? 
Likewise, why does it HAVE to be under 1600kgs? If it's, say, 1610kgs, is that the end of the world? Why does it have to be under 1600kgs?
You have set really, really bizarre parameters seemingly so you can moan there's nothing available.
So if a 4WD car does 0-62 in 6.8s, did 80mpg etc it wouldn't be acceptable to you, yet if it was FWD with the exact same performance figures, that would be acceptable? How weird.
I thought that.Likewise, why does it HAVE to be under 1600kgs? If it's, say, 1610kgs, is that the end of the world? Why does it have to be under 1600kgs?
You have set really, really bizarre parameters seemingly so you can moan there's nothing available.
So if a 4WD car does 0-62 in 6.8s, did 80mpg etc it wouldn't be acceptable to you, yet if it was FWD with the exact same performance figures, that would be acceptable? How weird.
Simpler requirements are:
RWD, manual, not always broken, has a useable boot, not diesel, 6 or 8 cylinder.
E65Ross said:
They are a very strange set of requirements, you aren't fussed about wheels driven, yet you need different 0-62mph times!?
Yes, because drive affects 0-60 times. So assuming identical weight and power cars but that *just* had different drive train a FWD would be ~1/2s slower than a RWD which would be ~1/2s slower than an AWD. The other option would be to specify power to weight.
E65Ross said:
You also ask for ridiculously different fuel consumption figures, based upon engine size. So if a 2.1 litre engine does 40mpg you'd be interested in buying it, yet if a 1.9 litre engine, with similar performance figures, does 60mpg, that's not acceptable?
Yes, because I get recharged for my business miles at the HMRC mileage rate which is different between <2l and >2l. Based on the assumed HMRC fuel cost (£1.285/litre) at 36mpg I get an extra 6p/mile over the fuel costs. To get the same out of a <2l I would need to hit 68mpg. E65Ross said:
Likewise, why does it HAVE to be under 1600kgs? If it's, say, 1610kgs, is that the end of the world? Why does it have to be under 1600kgs?
Because 1600Kg is what I have now, I don't want worse but no, roughly that weight not 1610Kg and the deal is off.E65Ross said:
So if a 4WD car does 0-62 in 6.8s, did 80mpg etc it wouldn't be acceptable to you, yet if it was FWD with the exact same performance figures, that would be acceptable? How weird.
A FWD with those figures would be massively quicker than the AWD everywhere *except* off the line (and hence would be slower than my current car). nickfrog said:
RoverP6B said:
nickfrog said:
Are you going to test drive it to validate your assumptions?
Why would I test-drive a car I have no interest in owning? The looks alone completely preclude it. I also do not want to drive a turbocharged car, nor one with electric steering. Both are anathema to what BMW as I know it from my own experiences has always stood for.The 540i cost me sod all over a year and 10,000 miles until the header tank split at 70mph on the A303 at somewhat past 225,000 miles. It drove magnificently, far better than the F11 I had for a month back in 2010. Better ride, better handling, less road noise... I loved it. It's now awaiting an engine rebuild/replacement, but it will see the road again. I also have a 535i saloon which is now undergoing some TLC, and Mrs P6B has our original 520i Touring - we are committed E39 owners and will remain so as long as we can keep these cars going. I'm also now dailying a 260,000-mile E66 760Li Individual. Yes, I'm mad. Mrs P6B has also got an E64 630Ci drophead.
janesmith1950 said:
RoverP6B said:
Why would I test-drive a car I have no interest in owning? The looks alone completely preclude it. I also do not want to drive a turbocharged car, nor one with electric steering. Both are anathema to what BMW as I know it from my own experiences has always stood for.
BMW stands for whatever BMW says it stands for. I personally can't believe they have airbags and ABS, totally against the old days when you could enjoy a good fatality or two in between burning fuel 4 star super-inefficiently.
Edited by RoverP6B on Thursday 13th June 20:00
The N52 averages 28mpg with me driving it, that's over 15K miles. It's good, in fact it's very good all things considered but the turbo charged 4 pots are in the 40's unless I am mistaken. I agree about the soul though, completely lost without the inline 6.
Looks, size, weight, all things that are really out of BMW's hands to be honest. Crash test regulations, emission laws, blah, blah, blah. No modern car can retain the charms from the past. To drive though, they benchmark well against their peers. That's the thing, they are still one of the best options if you enjoy getting from A to B.
Looks, size, weight, all things that are really out of BMW's hands to be honest. Crash test regulations, emission laws, blah, blah, blah. No modern car can retain the charms from the past. To drive though, they benchmark well against their peers. That's the thing, they are still one of the best options if you enjoy getting from A to B.
yonex said:
The N52 averages 28mpg with me driving it, that's over 15K miles. It's good, in fact it's very good all things considered but the turbo charged 4 pots are in the 40's unless I am mistaken. I agree about the soul though, completely lost without the inline 6.
Looks, size, weight, all things that are really out of BMW's hands to be honest. Crash test regulations, emission laws, blah, blah, blah. No modern car can retain the charms from the past. To drive though, they benchmark well against their peers. That's the thing, they are still one of the best options if you enjoy getting from A to B.
The 328i is only in the 40s on the NEDC test. Real world is another story. That said, I even had the old M54 2.2 520iT up to 41mpg on a couple of fast A-road/motorway runs, and it's supposed to be thirstier than the torquier 530i. I'm sure that an early F11 530i with the N52B30 mated to the 8-speed auto could be coaxed up into high 30s at least... and OK, looks are influenced by regulations, but other manufacturers manage to make reasonably elegant cars. The worst part of the new 3er is the sides... makes Bangle's "flame surfacing" look simple and unfussy. How can they look at that and say yeah, that'll do? They've binned so many BMW styling cues that could have been retained. Where is the swage line from the front wheelarch to the rear of the car? Where is the Hofmeister kink? Where is the L-shaped tail-light unit that's been a BMW styling cue since the E32 and E34? TBH this looks more like a Lexus (and not a nice old one like the LS400!).Looks, size, weight, all things that are really out of BMW's hands to be honest. Crash test regulations, emission laws, blah, blah, blah. No modern car can retain the charms from the past. To drive though, they benchmark well against their peers. That's the thing, they are still one of the best options if you enjoy getting from A to B.
E65Ross said:
But the Mazda nor the Mondeo you have average over those mpg figures, do they? So seems weird you want a new car to meet certain criteria your current cars don't?
The Mondeo does. Extra urban claimed is 41.5mpg, 85% of that is 35.3mpg. It gets between 34 and 36mpg "on a run".E65Ross said:
what car are we comparing it to, the Mondeo or the Mazda? What are the performance figures for that car?
The Mondeo, ~7.5s to 60, 1600kg.https://www.parkers.co.uk/ford/mondeo/estate-2007/...
RoverP6B said:
The 328i is only in the 40s on the NEDC test. Real world is another story. That said, I even had the old M54 2.2 520iT up to 41mpg on a couple of fast A-road/motorway runs, and it's supposed to be thirstier than the torquier 530i. I'm sure that an early F11 530i with the N52B30 mated to the 8-speed auto could be coaxed up into high 30s at least... and OK, looks are influenced by regulations, but other manufacturers manage to make reasonably elegant cars. The worst part of the new 3er is the sides... makes Bangle's "flame surfacing" look simple and unfussy. How can they look at that and say yeah, that'll do? They've binned so many BMW styling cues that could have been retained. Where is the swage line from the front wheelarch to the rear of the car? Where is the Hofmeister kink? Where is the L-shaped tail-light unit that's been a BMW styling cue since the E32 and E34? TBH this looks more like a Lexus (and not a nice old one like the LS400!).
It's because of production costs, how things are put together along with all the regulations. An LS400 looks like a dog in my eyes, bland, no identity, standard UJM. Bangle was slaughtered back in the day, how things change. I always give it 6 months before I judge something, and the new 3 looks quite nice, if big, in the flesh.E65Ross said:
What about, erm, the new Mondeo estate? 2 litre ecoboost is way, way more economical, a little lighter and more powerful?
Auto only, slower to 60, not economical enough and not as good to drive.If you're playing pub top trumps it's got more power though.
EDIT: plus, if I'm honest while the Mondeo *is* a great car, I didn't really want to get a second Mondeo, a third however is right out.
Edited by Fastdruid on Thursday 13th June 22:00
RoverP6B said:
Your friend must have been extremely unlucky.
Or you must have been extremely lucky. The reputable indy who fixed it reckosn his was actually not too bad and that generally speaking they are very expensive to keep on the road yet are pretty crap to drive, I would agree.
But either way, they are old cars and haven't aged well in my experience.
The new ones are quite superb and look great although, unlike you, I understand that looks are highly subjective.
Edited by nickfrog on Thursday 13th June 22:11
t/auto since it replaced the 2.5T. They never did it as an manual.nickfrog said:
RoverP6B said:
Your friend must have been extremely unlucky.
Or you must have been extremely lucky. The reputable indy who fixed it reckosn his was actually not too bad and that generally speaking they are very expensive to keep on the road yet are pretty crap to drive, I would agree.
But either way, they are old cars and haven't aged well in my experience.
The new ones are quite superb and look great although, unlike you, I understand that looks are highly subjective.
My reputable indy in Surrey reckons the E39s are the best cars BMW ever made, and I am inclined to agree, as magnificent as my E66 is. They aren't perfect, but they're 95% of the way there in 95% of aspects. The real kicker is corrosion in the sills, but of my three, the only one that has needed welding for an MoT is the 540i.
I would dare to suggest that rising values for E39 M5s rather disproves your negative view of the things. There's nothing exotic about them compared to my 540i - OK, mine is an auto Touring, but find a manual 540i saloon and the only difference is 543cc, 112bhp and that quad exhaust. BMW weren't actually planning to make an E39 M5 until the W210 E55 and C5 RS6 forced their hand, so had to do the minimum necessary to rush it out as quickly as possible. The result was a car that the reporters on PH and other journals generally agree is the best M5 and possibly the best BMW ever built.
The only reason my 540i was £1500 was mega miles, the autobox and a couple of rust blisters. You will not find a good manual 540i Sport for less than £5k now, and even that will have some serious miles on it.
My point is that there are serious deficiencies in today's BMWs in the way they look, ride, handle and drive in general. Steering devoid of feel. Subpar engines that lack refinement and offer minimal improvement in economy - certainly, an F10/11 530i with the 3.0 N52 is every bit as efficient as the 2.0 528i, but the old N52 is by far the nicer engine. What we are seeing today with BMW is the same malaise that hit Mercedes-Benz in the mid-late 1990s - the accountants and marketing men have taken over, the styling has gone to pot, the best engines have been discontinued in favour of cheaper alternatives (see also M119 vs M113, M120 vs M137) and the only reason the product still sells is the badge. If Alfa Romeo or Jaguar had come out with this or the new FWD 1er, the X1 and X2 or the 2-series Active Tourer, or fugly bloated rubbish like the X7, they'd have been crucified for them by this forum, and rightly so, but BMW can get away with murder precisely BECAUSE of the brand mythology created by the very cars that made me fall in love with BMW. They're selling badly-styled subpar product on the back of that heritage stretching from about 1970 to 2010 (roughly). From the E3 Neue Klasse through to the E60, there was an unbroken line of real drivers' cars in this approximate class of BMW vehicles (size-wise), although I'm guessing this is more the size of the E23 7er. The F10 was where it started to go wrong, with electric steering that totally lacks feel, but at least the N52 engine maintained that BMW tradition going right back to the E3.
My point is that there are serious deficiencies in today's BMWs in the way they look, ride, handle and drive in general. Steering devoid of feel. Subpar engines that lack refinement and offer minimal improvement in economy - certainly, an F10/11 530i with the 3.0 N52 is every bit as efficient as the 2.0 528i, but the old N52 is by far the nicer engine. What we are seeing today with BMW is the same malaise that hit Mercedes-Benz in the mid-late 1990s - the accountants and marketing men have taken over, the styling has gone to pot, the best engines have been discontinued in favour of cheaper alternatives (see also M119 vs M113, M120 vs M137) and the only reason the product still sells is the badge. If Alfa Romeo or Jaguar had come out with this or the new FWD 1er, the X1 and X2 or the 2-series Active Tourer, or fugly bloated rubbish like the X7, they'd have been crucified for them by this forum, and rightly so, but BMW can get away with murder precisely BECAUSE of the brand mythology created by the very cars that made me fall in love with BMW. They're selling badly-styled subpar product on the back of that heritage stretching from about 1970 to 2010 (roughly). From the E3 Neue Klasse through to the E60, there was an unbroken line of real drivers' cars in this approximate class of BMW vehicles (size-wise), although I'm guessing this is more the size of the E23 7er. The F10 was where it started to go wrong, with electric steering that totally lacks feel, but at least the N52 engine maintained that BMW tradition going right back to the E3.
Rumblestripe said:
Head of Marketing walks into BMW design studio and gently wakes one of the dozing staff. "We need a 'Touring' version of the 3 series". The Designer stretches and reaches for the brochure, picks up a "Sharpie" and draws a box on the side elevation. "There you go". "Thanks!" HoM exits quietly switching off the lights....
At least the grille doesn't look as ridiculous as on the X7...
But interiors are all too much the same...
yonex said:
RoverP6B said:
OK, mine is an auto Touring, but find a manual 540i saloon and the only difference is 543cc, 112bhp and that quad exhaust. t.
A 540i is far away from an M5. Which is exactly why a 540 is £1500 and a decent E39 M5 north of £15KAnd the suspension, brakes, interior bits, wheels.....
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff