RE: Next BMW M3 confirmed as all-wheel drive...
Discussion
beresd said:
Do they not use the term 4WD anymore?
Who are "they"? Are you referring to BMW? If so, I don't think they have ever called a model "4WD", have they? 4WD is a description of the fact it is driven by 4 wheels, all of the names such as 4matic, Quattro, Xdrive etc are brand names of the systems used in the manufacturer's cars. Just like Porsche call the 911 Carrera 4 the Carrer 4 rather than the 4WD Carrera. The 4 is their naming convention/nomenclature for it.If you read the description for those vehicles they will state they are 4WD though.
jamoor said:
HighwayStar said:
I’d say on paper, bare numbers the Model 3 would have clear advantages but in the reality... unless you’re about the numbers the M3 would offer more character, more soul.
I wonder how many people will be willing to forego the character and soul when a 200 mile journey costs £6 v £50. And no Dodgy BMW engine problems to boot.TX.
beresd said:
Do they not use the term 4WD anymore?
I can remember someone pointing out the difference (aside from AWD covering more than 4 wheels), it was something along the lines of a 4WD had 4 permanently driven wheels, AWD was that all wheels could drive, but didn't necessarily always.On that basis....Old Land Rovers are 4WD....the M5/E63 is AWD.
jamoor said:
Ares said:
That was only on the V10 and its shortened sibling V8 as used in the E9X though. Both are now well over 10yrs old.
Scaremonger will scare.
E39 and e46 too!Scaremonger will scare.
janesmith1950 said:
jamoor said:
Just look up rod bearings on M engines.
Your post gave the impression you're talking about people who'd choose between a new EV and a new M car. In which case you're suggesting the current engines have a reputation for poor reliability.
This is not the case.
Burwood said:
The E92 M3 does suffer Rod Bearing failures. A preventative fix via Evolve is £1,400.
An E92 isn't a new M3. When the E92 was available, you couldn't choose between an EV or an M3.Nobody would rationally choose a new EV over a new 'M' BMW because they were too worried about the engine reliability of the ICE.
Why people on the internet resort to such weak point scoring is beyond me.
janesmith1950 said:
Burwood said:
The E92 M3 does suffer Rod Bearing failures. A preventative fix via Evolve is £1,400.
An E92 isn't a new M3. When the E92 was available, you couldn't choose between an EV or an M3.Nobody would rationally choose a new EV over a new 'M' BMW because they were too worried about the engine reliability of the ICE.
Why people on the internet resort to such weak point scoring is beyond me.
Do BMWs still not fit radar cruise to M cars? The F10 certainly never had it as an option - on a large saloon that is designed to cover distances!
jamoor said:
janesmith1950 said:
Burwood said:
The E92 M3 does suffer Rod Bearing failures. A preventative fix via Evolve is £1,400.
An E92 isn't a new M3. When the E92 was available, you couldn't choose between an EV or an M3.Nobody would rationally choose a new EV over a new 'M' BMW because they were too worried about the engine reliability of the ICE.
Why people on the internet resort to such weak point scoring is beyond me.
Do BMWs still not fit radar cruise to M cars? The F10 certainly never had it as an option - on a large saloon that is designed to cover distances!
jamoor said:
janesmith1950 said:
Burwood said:
The E92 M3 does suffer Rod Bearing failures. A preventative fix via Evolve is £1,400.
An E92 isn't a new M3. When the E92 was available, you couldn't choose between an EV or an M3.Nobody would rationally choose a new EV over a new 'M' BMW because they were too worried about the engine reliability of the ICE.
Why people on the internet resort to such weak point scoring is beyond me.
Do BMWs still not fit radar cruise to M cars? The F10 certainly never had it as an option - on a large saloon that is designed to cover distances!
h about a M car for any reason they can think of..... Ares said:
jamoor said:
janesmith1950 said:
Burwood said:
The E92 M3 does suffer Rod Bearing failures. A preventative fix via Evolve is £1,400.
An E92 isn't a new M3. When the E92 was available, you couldn't choose between an EV or an M3.Nobody would rationally choose a new EV over a new 'M' BMW because they were too worried about the engine reliability of the ICE.
Why people on the internet resort to such weak point scoring is beyond me.
Do BMWs still not fit radar cruise to M cars? The F10 certainly never had it as an option - on a large saloon that is designed to cover distances!
h about a M car for any reason they can think of..... I owned the ISF which was in most respects a better car than the e92 M3 I had at the same time
I’d like to own a gsf though
jamoor said:
I wonder how many people will be willing to forego the character and soul when a 200 mile journey costs £6 v £50.
I really don't see many people caring about the fuel cost per mile.There are plenty of dipsticks like me around who are losing such vast sums in depreciation that the fuel cost isn't even a pimple on the ball sack of ownership costs.
I reckon I've done £30k in depreciation over 30 months on my M4 and have managed the grand total of 8,400 miles in that time - it's not even turned a wheel in the past 6 weeks.
So that's what...£3.60 per mile depreciation?
I reckon fuel cost is 30p per mile.
It would make sod all difference if the fuel was free or twice the price.
Even if I actually used it and tripled the fuel expenditure, it would be insignificant.
jamoor said:
I owned the ISF which was in most respects a better car than the e92 M3 I had at the same time
I’d like to own a gsf though
But it's not as a driver's car (compared to the M3/M4) and neither is an RC-F. I'd love the reliability and no doubt it wins hands down in this department (because it's Japanese made) but I know which one gets me more excited.I’d like to own a gsf though
fido said:
jamoor said:
I owned the ISF which was in most respects a better car than the e92 M3 I had at the same time
I’d like to own a gsf though
But it's not as a driver's car (compared to the M3/M4) and neither is an RC-F. I'd love the reliability and no doubt it wins hands down in this department (because it's Japanese made) but I know which one gets me more excited.I’d like to own a gsf though
PorkInsider said:
I really don't see many people caring about the fuel cost per mile.
There are plenty of dipsticks like me around who are losing such vast sums in depreciation that the fuel cost isn't even a pimple on the ball sack of ownership costs.
I reckon I've done £30k in depreciation over 30 months on my M4 and have managed the grand total of 8,400 miles in that time - it's not even turned a wheel in the past 6 weeks.
So that's what...£3.60 per mile depreciation?
I reckon fuel cost is 30p per mile.
It would make sod all difference if the fuel was free or twice the price.
Even if I actually used it and tripled the fuel expenditure, it would be insignificant.
That’s a tiny market, it’s the large market of 320ds, that makes cars like the m3 possible due to the shared platform.There are plenty of dipsticks like me around who are losing such vast sums in depreciation that the fuel cost isn't even a pimple on the ball sack of ownership costs.
I reckon I've done £30k in depreciation over 30 months on my M4 and have managed the grand total of 8,400 miles in that time - it's not even turned a wheel in the past 6 weeks.
So that's what...£3.60 per mile depreciation?
I reckon fuel cost is 30p per mile.
It would make sod all difference if the fuel was free or twice the price.
Even if I actually used it and tripled the fuel expenditure, it would be insignificant.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff