So E34's - 6 pot or V8 ???? What do you think?

[*George*]

If I want to get an E34 for everyday driving what’s the best all rounder for performance, and cost? I’m between a 2.5 6 pot, or a 3.0 V8, with manual boxes. But what’s better? I’m also very tempted by a touring estate. The car would be a late model as to avoid Nikasil problems.

I have had an E39 528i which was driven into and written off and the 518i E34 banger I brought as a cheap quick replacement has been a great car and far more simple and reliable that my E39 use to be. Its just a bit slow and not really as refined as a 5er should be so I'm now on the look out for one with something??? bigger under the bonnet.

Any views would be appreiated!

[sniff diesel]

The M50 engine in the 525i is a belter, smooth quick and economical for the size and power of the car. I've got a sale agreed for my E34 touring but if it falls through I'll drop you a mail if you're interested.

[Coq au Vin]

sniff diesel said:

The M50 engine in the 525i is a belter, smooth quick and economical for the size and power of the car. I've got a sale agreed for my E34 touring but if it falls through I'll drop you a mail if you're interested.

Yep - M50 525i over the 530i every time.

[jagdpanther]

I prefer the charactoristics of the straight 6, it's a quick revving, fairly swift, solid and reliable lump which still goes and sounds well

Then again, I'm biased

[bob1179]

The only one to have is the 4.0 V8 (obviously).

286bhp and 400Nm of torque.







I may be slightly biased though...

[JamesK]

Agreed. Grow a pair and get a 540!

The 530 V8 is the worst of both worlds really. Much less powerful than the 4.0 and almost as bad economically. The 24v 2.5 is an absolute belter and more sensible if you do any sort of miles purely on fuel. Basic running costs for the 4.0 aren't bad tho in my experience. I've owned mine for over 6 years now and not doing that many miles a year it's a brilliant brilliant machine!

[Crombers]

Doesn't matter how late the 3.0 or 4.0 V8 is though as both will contain nikasil....

[*George*]

Yea a 4 litre would be absolutely great. But what mpg should I expect, insurance could be steep, and most importantly, how easy are they to get – someone on the internet says only 60 manual RHDs tourings were made by BMW, so I guess it is getting hard to find a good one these days?

[Diesel Meister]

*George* said:

Yea a 4 litre would be absolutely great. But what mpg should I expect, insurance could be steep, and most importantly, how easy are they to get – someone on the internet says only 60 manual RHDs tourings were made by BMW, so I guess it is getting hard to find a good one these days?

Ahem

[chazzer]

bob1179 said:

The only one to have is the 4.0 V8 (obviously).

286bhp and 400Nm of torque.







I may be slightly biased though...

This man speaks the truth although I too maybe massively biased.....

[jagdpanther]

6...



That's 6




6 cylinders!

See, number of the beast was 666 not 888

[JamesK]

Crombers said:

Doesn't matter how late the 3.0 or 4.0 V8 is though as both will contain nikasil....

Firstly that is plainly wrong as a fair few were replaced. Secondly, and I stand to be shot down in self righteous flames on this, cars with surviving nikasil engines are HIGHLY unlikely to develop trouble if they dont already show signs of it.

One thing we can agree on is that it is a glorious engine, as is the 4.4 that replaced it.

Economy, I get 20mpg and that is 90% pure town traffic driving. No exagerations. My car runs slightly rich but on a recent trip to France I averaged 27-28mpg doing 85+ leptons on the motorways. I have heard others get better than that but I am almost certain you wont get worse than mine in normal driving conditions. This is an auto by the way with only occasional sports mode frolics

[Job38]

Just to mix it up further, I'd go for neither.

My choice would be a 535i Sport.

Sure it's not 25v like the 2.5 and I know it doesn't have much more power but the old M30 is a classic engine.

Oh, and it's got to be manual, autos don't count

[jagdpanther]

JamesK said:

Firstly that is plainly wrong as a fair few were replaced. Secondly, and I stand to be shot down in self righteous flames on this, cars with surviving nikasil engines are HIGHLY unlikely to develop trouble if they dont already show signs of it.

I'm lead to believe that this is the case, similar to the Jaguar nikasil problems in respect that those that have already covered a good range of miles, should be good for it

[Crombers]

JamesK said:

Crombers said:

Doesn't matter how late the 3.0 or 4.0 V8 is though as both will contain nikasil....

Firstly that is plainly wrong as a fair few were replaced. Secondly, and I stand to be shot down in self righteous flames on this, cars with surviving nikasil engines are HIGHLY unlikely to develop trouble if they dont already show signs of it.

My point being that where you can avoid Nikasil cars entirely by buying E39s within certain date ranges (Or avoid it completely via the V8) those two M60 engines came with the E34 throughout its production life.

Secondly, a fair few engines were replaced with identical nikasil blocks. So it's not safe to assume a replacement = no nikasil.

Thirdly, I quite agree that the presence of Nikasil is not necessarily a show stopper anyway..