View Full Version : 3-Series Family
So...my 4 year old son just saw this pic on the desktop of my laptop and said "Daddy I don't like that car." Take a wild guess as to which model he was pointing at? Yup, the E90. He said "Daddy you can have that one (E21), that one (E30), that one (E36), and that one (E46), but you can't have that one. Smart boy! :lol:
BTW, I'd never own an E21.
Edit: He also stated "that car is ugly." E90
http://forums.carmudgeons.com/album_pic.php?pic_id=589
clyde
01-19-2005, 11:51 AM
Ask my daughter what sound my car makes and she says, "zoom, zoom, zoom"
undefined
01-19-2005, 11:53 AM
So...my 4 year old son just saw this pic on the desktop of my laptop and said "Daddy I don't like that car." Take a wild guess as to which model he was pointing at? the E36?
To be fair, if they had a 2002+ E46 sans M-tech kit, it would look pretty ugly too. They should have had my car there, since it is (IMO) the best E46 sedan made, and the latest version.
But no question, the E90 would STILL look awkward.
...Yet it is by far the best looking all-new BMW vehicle to come out in years.
Shrug...I'd hit it. :dunno:
Not exactly fair. Every car there looks like a base model except the new E90. It's a loaded 330 with the 18 inch rims. :?
Not exactly fair. Every car there looks like a base model except the new E90. It's a loaded 330 with the 18 inch rims. :?
Exactly...The E30 should have been an iS and the E46 should have had SP or ZHP. Naturally AG wanted to make them all look like ass next to the E90. :roll:
Not exactly fair. Every car there looks like a base model except the new E90. It's a loaded 330 with the 18 inch rims. :?
Exactly...The E30 should have been an iS and the E46 should have had SP or ZHP. Naturally AG wanted to make them all look like ass next to the E90. :roll:
Or maybe they used first year models, as with the E90?
I don't know why everyone is calling the E90 "ugly." Attractive, not really, but it's very similar to the E46 and doesn't have the design disharmony that has characterized Bangle's other "works."
Roadstergal
01-19-2005, 02:08 PM
"Daddy you can have that one (E21)... Smart boy!
:kekeke:
I agree with JST. It's not really "ugly," it just isn't all that great. Funny though - I liked the square side mirrors. Let you see a lot of stuff. Form over function has hit BMW, I guess.
The e90 looks a lot bigger than the others.
lip277
01-19-2005, 03:08 PM
The e90 looks a lot bigger than the others.
It seems every new car is bigger than the one before it.....
Using Honda as an example....
Remember the first Accord (back in 1976)? It would almost be conisidered a micro car today..... The Mini has just a .2" shorter wheelbase.....
http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/generations/accord/77.honda.accord2drhatchback.350.jpg
The e90 is bigger than the e46. The e46 was bigger than the e30. The e30 was bigger than the e21. The e21 was bigger than the 2002 (by a bit).
It seems that is where the "1" series is coming in. Over time, as the cars grow, a new one has to come underneath it to start the growth process all over.
My thoughts anyway....
Melissa
01-19-2005, 04:48 PM
I agree with JST. It's not really "ugly," it just isn't all that great. Funny though - I liked the square side mirrors. Let you see a lot of stuff. Form over function has hit BMW, I guess.
I thought it was atrocious before I saw it in person. Then I just didn't think much of it when I'd see them on the road.
I agree with JST. It's not really "ugly," it just isn't all that great. Funny though - I liked the square side mirrors. Let you see a lot of stuff. Form over function has hit BMW, I guess.
As far as the mirrors go, that's been the case since the Euro E34 M5.
I agree with JST. It's not really "ugly," it just isn't all that great. Funny though - I liked the square side mirrors. Let you see a lot of stuff. Form over function has hit BMW, I guess.
As far as the mirrors go, that's been the case since the Euro E34 M5.
Yep. Though I will say that with European market convex mirrors, the M ovals are much more useful than with US market glass.
Square/convex would be even better, of course.
Roadstergal
01-19-2005, 06:57 PM
It seems every new car is bigger than the one before it.....
Yep. I can't think of a four-wheeled vehicle that got smaller in a later incarnation (no pun intended).
Although many bikes have been getting lighter. Go figger.
The E90 looks like a 5er compared to the others
lemming
01-19-2005, 10:15 PM
it's a nice evolution.
it isn't incredibly odd looking like the new 5 or the new 7.
I'm really steamed that the E90 won't be at Detroit. May have to take the Amtrak to NYC to check it out, if I can spare the time. Of course, if the weather prevents me from flying this weekend...
I honestly do not have a big problem with the E90's looks. The size and promise of even more intrusive technology has me keeping my expectations low.
But it's no uglier than the facelifted A4/S4.
zcasavant
01-20-2005, 12:04 AM
I honestly do not have a big problem with the E90's looks. The size and promise of even more intrusive technology has me keeping my expectations low.
But it's no uglier than the facelifted A4/S4.
So, assuming the technology is not too intrusive, would you consider a 6spd e90 M3/4?
I honestly do not have a big problem with the E90's looks. The size and promise of even more intrusive technology has me keeping my expectations low.
But it's no uglier than the facelifted A4/S4.
I've heard that the facelifted A4/S4 looks better in person...maybe that will be the case with the E90. Size is also an issue with the E90 for me. I grant you it will be the size of my E34 if not larger. :(
Autarch
01-20-2005, 03:39 AM
I think that I am one of the rarities that likes all of the Banglized BMW's more than the outgoing models.
Especially the Z4 and 5 series :sumo:
Yep. I can't think of a four-wheeled vehicle that got smaller in a later incarnation (no pun intended).
Do the 80s Monte Carlos, LeMans, and Chargers count?
I honestly do not have a big problem with the E90's looks. The size and promise of even more intrusive technology has me keeping my expectations low.
But it's no uglier than the facelifted A4/S4.
I've heard that the facelifted A4/S4 looks better in person...maybe that will be the case with the E90. Size is also an issue with the E90 for me. I grant you it will be the size of my E34 if not larger. :(
Yes.
But it will weigh between 400 and 600 lbs less.
Seems like progress, to me.
I've got to start rebelling against this idea that newer BMWs are worse than older BMWs. Bangle's fuckwit styling aside, it's just not true. I've recently driven a number of well-preserved E28 and E34 M5s, and I've gotta say, compared to *any* current generation BMW, they drive like big piles of horseshit. They have creaky, loose structures that provide poor platforms for suspensions. They have high-strung engines that offer little torque down low and performance that, in any relevant area, is bested by even the garden variety 330. The steering feels loose and disconnected, no doubt because of the anicen regime reciprocating ball steering that these cars used.
Moreover, despite what has happened with the 3 (which has increased in size and weight), every generation of 5 since the E34 has actually been lighter than its predecessor, IIRC.
Old BMWs are cool in their own right. But they aren't very good cars by modern standards.
I've got to start rebelling against this idea that newer BMWs are worse than older BMWs. Bangle's fuckwit styling aside, it's just not true. I've recently driven a number of well-preserved E28 and E34 M5s, and I've gotta say, compared to *any* current generation BMW, they drive like big piles of horseshit. They have creaky, loose structures that provide poor platforms for suspensions. They have high-strung engines that offer little torque down low and performance that, in any relevant area, is bested by even the garden variety 330. The steering feels loose and disconnected, no doubt because of the anicen regime reciprocating ball steering that these cars used.
Moreover, despite what has happened with the 3 (which has increased in size and weight), every generation of 5 since the E34 has actually been lighter than its predecessor, IIRC.
Old BMWs are cool in their own right. But they aren't very good cars by modern standards.
Objectively you're right. BMW produces cars that are faster, nimbler, and more solid than their predecessors each time. This is remarkable when you consider that each generation is regarded at the very top of their respective heaps. I think people's objections are more of the visceral sort, starting with the first impressions (exterior style) and followed by the driving experience. I think most of us sit in a new BMW, take it for a spin, and equate the quiet, non-dramatic ride with a loss of sportiness.
The first thing I noticed when I took first E30 M3 test drive was that it was very shaky. Very, very wobbly, very squeaky, very rattly. And this was compared to my '99, which was far eclipsed by the E46 in terms of chassis stiffness. But for some reason, it seemed more fun to me to be in one of those older cars. Think of wooden rollercoasters, which don't go very fast and can't do loops, but take you for a ride that no steel coaster will ever reproduce.
lip277
01-20-2005, 11:55 AM
Yep. I can't think of a four-wheeled vehicle that got smaller in a later incarnation (no pun intended).
Do the 80s Monte Carlos, LeMans, and Chargers count?
Maybe... I guess.
These really aren't the same car as before (straight model year to model year lineage). The Monte Carlo, LeMans and Charger are more a resurrection of the model name for marketing than anything else.
The Thunderbird is the only example I could think of where a later model year car was smaller than the earlier ones. See HERE (http://www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/articles/tbird_history.html)
I can't think of a car that has had a consistent run (with maybe just a year gap) that fits the bill for what we're talking about other than the T-Bird. I'm sure there are some, I just can't think of another one......
They have creaky, loose structures that provide poor platforms for suspensions.
I have to disagree. Both the E34 with 145,XXX miles and the E30 M3 with 37,XXX miles have zero creaks or rattles. I can not apply that to the 93 E36 325i or the two E46s (323Ci & 330Ci) that I had. I also prefer no DBW or active steering as it seriously appears to hinder the overall driving experience. When comparing the family E65 745iL steering to any BMW I have ever owned it is just absurd how overboosted it is. Granted the 7 handles well for as big as it is, but it still feels very disconnect like every new BMW I have driven (X3, 7, 5, 6, & Z4).
An additional note, the X5 (2003) has an extremely heavy (weighted) steering, that most small women would complain about, but when compared to anything else in the current model line it feels connected to the road. I know...It sounds totally nuts, but.
Sounds like you've got two exemplary older Bimmers there (I know the M3 is), but that's not the general case. And rattling doesn't really translate perfectly to chassis rigidity, as you know. Both the E30 and E34 platforms flex a lot more than any modern BMW, which hinders their ability to handle. I know this doesn't stop the M3 from being competitive in its day, but even that car is barely up to the task of keeping up with the new generation.
And yes, DBW, active steering, active suspension, etc., all detract from the driving experience. But the net result is still a faster car that turns and stops better, with a more comfortable interior than anything before it. That doesn't make them more fun to drive, necessarily, but it does make them objectively better. That doesn't mean I wouldn't rather own an E30 to an E46, but I'd certainly rather drive the E46 to work every day.
I've got to start rebelling against this idea that newer BMWs are worse than older BMWs. Bangle's fuckwit styling aside, it's just not true. I've recently driven a number of well-preserved E28 and E34 M5s, and I've gotta say, compared to *any* current generation BMW, they drive like big piles of horseshit. They have creaky, loose structures that provide poor platforms for suspensions. They have high-strung engines that offer little torque down low and performance that, in any relevant area, is bested by even the garden variety 330. The steering feels loose and disconnected, no doubt because of the anicen regime reciprocating ball steering that these cars used.
Moreover, despite what has happened with the 3 (which has increased in size and weight), every generation of 5 since the E34 has actually been lighter than its predecessor, IIRC.
Old BMWs are cool in their own right. But they aren't very good cars by modern standards.
Objectively you're right. BMW produces cars that are faster, nimbler, and more solid than their predecessors each time. This is remarkable when you consider that each generation is regarded at the very top of their respective heaps. I think people's objections are more of the visceral sort, starting with the first impressions (exterior style) and followed by the driving experience. I think most of us sit in a new BMW, take it for a spin, and equate the quiet, non-dramatic ride with a loss of sportiness.
The first thing I noticed when I took first E30 M3 test drive was that it was very shaky. Very, very wobbly, very squeaky, very rattly. And this was compared to my '99, which was far eclipsed by the E46 in terms of chassis stiffness. But for some reason, it seemed more fun to me to be in one of those older cars. Think of wooden rollercoasters, which don't go very fast and can't do loops, but take you for a ride that no steel coaster will ever reproduce.
Good analogy.
I guess I am finding myself siding with Lemming--high performance is its own reward.
BTW, let me state that I am not in love with my E34 a.k.a Old Whitey, in reality I have come to hate it. It is finally starting to show it's age as it continues to require costly repairs, but it is less expensive to repair it than purchase a new vehicle. Trust me, I'd love to have a new car, but it is just not in the cards.
They have creaky, loose structures that provide poor platforms for suspensions.
I have to disagree. Both the E34 with 145,XXX miles and the E30 M3 with 37,XXX miles have zero creaks or rattles. I can not apply that to the 93 E36 325i or the two E46s (323Ci & 330Ci) that I had. I also prefer no DBW or active steering as it seriously appears to hinder the overall driving experience. When comparing the family E65 745iL steering to any BMW I have ever owned it is just absurd how overboosted it is. Granted the 7 handles well for as big as it is, but it still feels very disconnect like every new BMW I have driven (X3, 7, 5, 6, & Z4).
An additional note, the X5 (2003) has an extremely heavy (weighted) steering, that most small women would complain about, but when compared to anything else in the current model line it feels connected to the road. I know...It sounds totally nuts, but.
Zero creaks or rattles does not equal a particularly stiff structure, though clearly creaks and rattles can develop as a result of chassis flex over time. They can also develop just becuase two parts rub together the wrong way.
The torsional rigidity of the E34 does not compare to the E46--I think that's a pretty straightforward claim, for which I have no specific numbers to cite but the truth of which I have no doubt based on my own experience.
Steering feel is very subjective. I've never driven an E34 525, so I can't comment on that specifically. I will say that steering "feel" and steering weight have no connection whatsover. I've driven cars with very light steering that communicated wonderfully with the driver (e.g., the RX-8) and cars with heavier steering that provided very little feedback (e.g., the E46 323). I think, overall, that steering feel is a weak point of the E46 generally, whatever the weight of the rack, but it's orders of magnitude better than the racks I've sampled in the E34 lineage (including M5s and a 540i Sport).
Zero creaks or rattles does not equal a particularly stiff structure, though clearly creaks and rattles can develop as a result of chassis flex over time
I personally invite anyone to come take a ride in the M3...you'll be quite surprised as to just how firm it is (bone jarring) and the amount of flex that is absent in a 17 year old vehicle. It really is impressive. ;)
Zero creaks or rattles does not equal a particularly stiff structure, though clearly creaks and rattles can develop as a result of chassis flex over time
I personally invite anyone to come take a ride in the M3...you'll be quite surprised as to just how firm it is (bone jarring) and the amount of flex that is absent in a 17 year old vehicle. It really is impressive. ;)
'Kay.
Then we'll take a ride in my M3, and we can see which has less flex. Taking nothing away from the progenitor of all M3s, the E30 M3 feels like it's made out of cardboard next to an E46 M3. I am certain that the E90 (esp. the M3, which will presumably have more seam welds than the "base" car) will raise the bar again.
Bone-jarring is not an indication of a stiff structure. Actually, it's the opposite. A bone-jarring ride is typically caused by stiff springs and dampers. The firmer the structure of the car (and the more solid and stable the mounting points for the suspension), the less you have to compensate with rock-solid dampers and springs. Eliminating flex in the chassis, as a general matter, lets you use softer springs and dampers, acheive a better ride, and still maintain the same levels of handling precision.
Zero creaks or rattles does not equal a particularly stiff structure, though clearly creaks and rattles can develop as a result of chassis flex over time
I personally invite anyone to come take a ride in the M3...you'll be quite surprised as to just how firm it is (bone jarring) and the amount of flex that is absent in a 17 year old vehicle. It really is impressive. ;)
'Kay.
Then we'll take a ride in my M3, and we can see which has less flex. Taking nothing away from the progenitor of all M3s, the E30 M3 feels like it's made out of cardboard next to an E46 M3. I am certain that the E90 (esp. the M3, which will presumably have more seam welds than the "base" car) will raise the bar again.
Bone-jarring is not an indication of a stiff structure. Actually, it's the opposite. A bone-jarring ride is typically caused by stiff springs and dampers. The firmer the structure of the car (and the more solid and stable the mounting points for the suspension), the less you have to compensate with rock-solid dampers and springs. Eliminating flex in the chassis, as a general matter, lets you use softer springs and dampers, acheive a better ride, and still maintain the same levels of handling precision.
I'll have to agree with JST. I currently drive two cars of similar size and both in their prime were considered vault-like chassis(es)?.
My 190E had 150K miles before a single rattle was heard, and it is everyone says it is solid as a tank. But the 330i has virtually no flex, whereas you can almost feel the 190E body flex in certain situations. Never more apparanet than when jacking up on corner of the cars.
zcasavant
01-20-2005, 02:00 PM
Zero creaks or rattles does not equal a particularly stiff structure, though clearly creaks and rattles can develop as a result of chassis flex over time
I personally invite anyone to come take a ride in the M3...you'll be quite surprised as to just how firm it is (bone jarring) and the amount of flex that is absent in a 17 year old vehicle. It really is impressive. ;)
'Kay.
Then we'll take a ride in my M3, and we can see which has less flex. Taking nothing away from the progenitor of all M3s, the E30 M3 feels like it's made out of cardboard next to an E46 M3. I am certain that the E90 (esp. the M3, which will presumably have more seam welds than the "base" car) will raise the bar again.
Bone-jarring is not an indication of a stiff structure. Actually, it's the opposite. A bone-jarring ride is typically caused by stiff springs and dampers. The firmer the structure of the car (and the more solid and stable the mounting points for the suspension), the less you have to compensate with rock-solid dampers and springs. Eliminating flex in the chassis, as a general matter, lets you use softer springs and dampers, acheive a better ride, and still maintain the same levels of handling precision.
I'll have to agree with JST. I currently drive two cars of similar size and both in their prime were considered vault-like chassis(es)?.
My 190E had 150K miles before a single rattle was heard, and it is everyone says it is solid as a tank. But the 330i has virtually no flex, whereas you can almost feel the 190E body flex in certain situations. Never more apparanet than when jacking up on corner of the cars.
You don't know the meaning of the word rattle until you own an e36.
Bah. Mine hardly makes any errant noises.
'Kay.
Then we'll take a ride in my M3, and we can see which has less flex. Taking nothing away from the progenitor of all M3s, the E30 M3 feels like it's made out of cardboard next to an E46 M3. I am certain that the E90 (esp. the M3, which will presumably have more seam welds than the "base" car) will raise the bar again.
Bone-jarring is not an indication of a stiff structure. Actually, it's the opposite. A bone-jarring ride is typically caused by stiff springs and dampers. The firmer the structure of the car (and the more solid and stable the mounting points for the suspension), the less you have to compensate with rock-solid dampers and springs. Eliminating flex in the chassis, as a general matter, lets you use softer springs and dampers, acheive a better ride, and still maintain the same levels of handling precision.
Honestly I have never driven nor riden in an E46 M3. Nothing against it or what it is, but never the less it is just not deemed a reliable automobile (getting OT) One of my close friends is a BMW Tech and he feels BMW AG built an engine (S54) that they should have never built for a company who has 'motor' in their company name. He actually has a friend that has an 03 or 04 M3 that has had 3 engines and the brakes have even failed. Granted it very well could be a lemon, but come on...3 rod bearing recalls?
Edit:
Both my 323Ci and 330Ci had plenty of flex, the 330 appeared to have more than the 323 did. :roll:
The #1 thing I hated about my E36 was the rattles due to the cheap plastic interior and too much body flex. I'll give it this, it was a hoot to drive, but not nearly as much as my E30 325is and I'm sorry to say that the E30 M3 isn't even as much fun to drive as the E30 325is was. The M3 just doesn't have enough torque off the line. The sole reason I own it vs. an iS is because of the history (racing), the amount imported into the US, and the overall condition of this specific car. You will never find an iS in the same condition...they just don't exisit.
My e36 rattled, but that was not what made me unhappy with it. It certainly didn't rattle enough to make me crazy. On the other hand, it was never cold, either.
On the other hand, it was never cold, either.
:?
You mean, as in A/C-cold?
zcasavant
01-20-2005, 02:58 PM
My e36 rattled, but that was not what made me unhappy with it. It certainly didn't rattle enough to make me crazy. On the other hand, it was never cold, either.
The thing that bother me about mine is the constant worry about something breaking. Now that the e90 is arriving, my car is starting to look and feel very old. Maybe it's time for an e46.
I've replaced damn near everything. So I'm not worried about much.
New tires go on the rear tomorrow.
zcasavant
01-20-2005, 03:09 PM
I've replaced damn near everything. So I'm not worried about much.
New tires go on the rear tomorrow.
The PS2s are the best tires I've ever driven on.
At this moment, I only have PS2s on the front. I still have (bald) S-03s on the rear.
Great for the snow.
I've driven several E30 M3s, and as you all know I also owned one for an all-too-brief period of time. I absolutely love that car. It's one of my very favorites and I'll own one again one day. But its 1987 vintage chassis does not hold a sputtering match to the quality of the E46 chassis. There is just no way to deny that. I can raise one corner of an E46 and watch as the corresponding corner on the same side starts to creep up just a few inches behind. On the E30, it takes quite a while before that happens. Even on brand new suspension parts (not mine), you can clearly feel the car flex over uneven pavement. The car still feels great to drive and I have yet to find one that gives me better feedback. But the platform is clearly outdated, as well it should be after 15+ years of development.
The E46 has its own issues, but objective performance is not one of them. A base 325i, by the numbers, will out-accelerate, out-corner, and out-stop an E30 M3. It will do so, screeching tires and all, while the driver listens to the nuances of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata if she so desires. It's also less fun to drive, by far.
A 330i is just a hair slower than an E36 M3, is more comfortable inside, and is far quieter. It's also more numb, feels heavier, and is not as much fun as the E36. The E36, in turn, is not quite as much fun as the E30.
But, objectively, the E46 is the best 3-series platform that BMW have produced to date.
A 330i is just a hair slower than an E36 M3, is more comfortable inside, and is far quieter. It's also more numb, feels heavier, and is not as much fun as the E36. The E36, in turn, is not quite as much fun as the E30.
But, objectively, the E46 is the best 3-series platform that BMW have produced to date.
Is this your run of the mill 330i or a ZHP 330i? I say this because I drove zach's car briefly and I believe his is bone-stock. I found them to be very similar in performance. What his car did provide was more a of a race-car feel than mine. I can see how that can be translated into a feeling of numbness, but not for one second did it make me think about it as far as a negative on my car.
It achieves almost identical daily-driving performance (I cannot judge 10/10ths performance since I did not drive it that hard) with a bit more comfort. I personally prefer it that way. I see it as a good thing unless you plan on tracking/autoxing the car regularly.
Frankly, given the roads around here, the "harshness" on my 330i is about the most I am willing to tolerate on a daily commuter than I don't plan on tracking/autoxing regularly. But of course, that s just me.
A 330i is just a hair slower than an E36 M3, is more comfortable inside, and is far quieter. It's also more numb, feels heavier, and is not as much fun as the E36. The E36, in turn, is not quite as much fun as the E30.
But, objectively, the E46 is the best 3-series platform that BMW have produced to date.
Is this your run of the mill 330i or a ZHP 330i? I say this because I drove zach's car briefly and I believe his is bone-stock. I found them to be very similar in performance. What his car did provide was more a of a race-car feel than mine. I can see how that can be translated into a feeling of numbness, but not for one second did it make me think about it as far as a negative on my car.
It achieves almost identical daily-driving performance (I cannot judge 10/10ths performance since I did not drive it that hard) with a bit more comfort. I personally prefer it that way. I see it as a good thing unless you plan on tracking/autoxing the car regularly.
Frankly, given the roads around here, the "harshness" on my 330i is about the most I am willing to tolerate on a daily commuter than I don't plan on tracking/autoxing regularly. But of course, that s just me.
Doesn't really matter. The E36 M3 was rated at 240hp, while the 330i was rated at 225 hp IIRC. About 235 for the ZHP, if I'm not mistaken. Either way, they're really darn close. Most drivers would probably get exactly the same straight-line performance out of both of them.
The point is, as you said, that the two cars are very similar in performance. My '99 felt more racy to me, though, and I really liked its interior. The E46 is impressive in its own ways, which makes it kind of a wash unless you have a strong preference one way or another.
A 330i is just a hair slower than an E36 M3, is more comfortable inside, and is far quieter. It's also more numb, feels heavier, and is not as much fun as the E36. The E36, in turn, is not quite as much fun as the E30.
But, objectively, the E46 is the best 3-series platform that BMW have produced to date.
Is this your run of the mill 330i or a ZHP 330i? I say this because I drove zach's car briefly and I believe his is bone-stock. I found them to be very similar in performance. What his car did provide was more a of a race-car feel than mine. I can see how that can be translated into a feeling of numbness, but not for one second did it make me think about it as far as a negative on my car.
It achieves almost identical daily-driving performance (I cannot judge 10/10ths performance since I did not drive it that hard) with a bit more comfort. I personally prefer it that way. I see it as a good thing unless you plan on tracking/autoxing the car regularly.
Frankly, given the roads around here, the "harshness" on my 330i is about the most I am willing to tolerate on a daily commuter than I don't plan on tracking/autoxing regularly. But of course, that s just me.
I'd be interested to compare how my car, with PSS9s set fairly stiffly, compares in feel to the ZHP suspension (if it even is any different than the stock SP suspension. Isn't that still a debated question?)
My car is "harsh" to most people, but just the right blend of stiffness and compliance for my daily driver needs and desires. :dunno:
clyde
01-20-2005, 05:32 PM
Yep. I can't think of a four-wheeled vehicle that got smaller in a later incarnation (no pun intended).
Do the 80s Monte Carlos, LeMans, and Chargers count?
Maybe... I guess.
These really aren't the same car as before (straight model year to model year lineage). The Monte Carlo, LeMans and Charger are more a resurrection of the model name for marketing than anything else.
The Thunderbird is the only example I could think of where a later model year car was smaller than the earlier ones. See HERE (http://www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/articles/tbird_history.html)
I can't think of a car that has had a consistent run (with maybe just a year gap) that fits the bill for what we're talking about other than the T-Bird. I'm sure there are some, I just can't think of another one......
Many (most?) American car models were reduced in size from their peaks in the 70s into the 80s (even early/mid 70s to late 70s). Forget name only descendents that revived long dormant names.
One illustrative example was GM's G Body line (Monte Carlo, Regal, Cutlass, Grand Prix) change for 1978. The cars went from a 116" wheelbase to 108". Total length dropped 15"-17" and weight dropped around 750 pounds. The same basic thing was happening to nearly all of GM's lines at that time.
lemming
01-20-2005, 06:42 PM
Yep. I can't think of a four-wheeled vehicle that got smaller in a later incarnation (no pun intended).
Do the 80s Monte Carlos, LeMans, and Chargers count?
Maybe... I guess.
These really aren't the same car as before (straight model year to model year lineage). The Monte Carlo, LeMans and Charger are more a resurrection of the model name for marketing than anything else.
The Thunderbird is the only example I could think of where a later model year car was smaller than the earlier ones. See HERE (http://www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/articles/tbird_history.html)
I can't think of a car that has had a consistent run (with maybe just a year gap) that fits the bill for what we're talking about other than the T-Bird. I'm sure there are some, I just can't think of another one......
Many (most?) American car models were reduced in size from their peaks in the 70s into the 80s (even early/mid 70s to late 70s). Forget name only descendents that revived long dormant names.
One illustrative example was GM's G Body line (Monte Carlo, Regal, Cutlass, Grand Prix) change for 1978. The cars went from a 116" wheelbase to 108". Total length dropped 15"-17" and weight dropped around 750 pounds. The same basic thing was happening to nearly all of GM's lines at that time.
you're old.
(espn deadpan voice).
:lol:
there is no comparison between an e36m3-e36/8 at the track versus an e30m3. the e30 wiggles its entire chassis. it communicates and moves with you, but it flexes A LOT.
considering the e46 is an even better chassis (quantitatively), this is a moot point. the e46 is a fantastic (numb) car. it does not rattle as much as the e36s do and flexes a lot less. but you get what you pay for. as time goes by, you lose more and more feel in the cars.
again, most evident riding and then driving the e30m3 on a roadcourse --that is a joyous car to drive....at the track.
Just a reminder or an FYI, but the E30 M3 - S14 won 1400+ races. Can't say that about the E36 M3 nor the E46 M3. Plus worldwide production of both the E36 & E46 M3 are far greater than the 17,XXX E30 M3s produced.
Edit: From BMW AG; The E30 M3 advanced to being the most successful touring car of all time. A total of 17,970 units was built.
A 330i is just a hair slower than an E36 M3, is more comfortable inside, and is far quieter. It's also more numb, feels heavier, and is not as much fun as the E36. The E36, in turn, is not quite as much fun as the E30.
But, objectively, the E46 is the best 3-series platform that BMW have produced to date.
Is this your run of the mill 330i or a ZHP 330i? I say this because I drove zach's car briefly and I believe his is bone-stock. I found them to be very similar in performance. What his car did provide was more a of a race-car feel than mine. I can see how that can be translated into a feeling of numbness, but not for one second did it make me think about it as far as a negative on my car.
It achieves almost identical daily-driving performance (I cannot judge 10/10ths performance since I did not drive it that hard) with a bit more comfort. I personally prefer it that way. I see it as a good thing unless you plan on tracking/autoxing the car regularly.
Frankly, given the roads around here, the "harshness" on my 330i is about the most I am willing to tolerate on a daily commuter than I don't plan on tracking/autoxing regularly. But of course, that s just me.
Doesn't really matter. The E36 M3 was rated at 240hp, while the 330i was rated at 225 hp IIRC. About 235 for the ZHP, if I'm not mistaken. Either way, they're really darn close. Most drivers would probably get exactly the same straight-line performance out of both of them.
The point is, as you said, that the two cars are very similar in performance. My '99 felt more racy to me, though, and I really liked its interior. The E46 is impressive in its own ways, which makes it kind of a wash unless you have a strong preference one way or another.
Addressing several replies in one post:
I think that they are within the margin of production variance--a good 330 is probably as quick as a bad E36 M3. Hunter's 330Ci was almost exactly as fast as my old M3C.
The ZHP does have different parts. Hack was smoking crack, we discovered.
The E30 M3's racing record or limited production status has nothing to do with its chassis stiffness. As I said, I take nothing away from the E30 M3, which *in its day* was a remarkable machine. Seventeen years is a long time, and progress keeps progressing. These days, the M3's straightline performance is about what you'd expect from a tarted up econobox, and its structure is so loose that no self-respecting company would put it into production. The same is true, only more so, for a Duesenberg SJ or a Mercedes 300 SL Gullwing. Doesn't mean I wouldn't want to own one.
A 330i is just a hair slower than an E36 M3, is more comfortable inside, and is far quieter. It's also more numb, feels heavier, and is not as much fun as the E36. The E36, in turn, is not quite as much fun as the E30.
But, objectively, the E46 is the best 3-series platform that BMW have produced to date.
Is this your run of the mill 330i or a ZHP 330i? I say this because I drove zach's car briefly and I believe his is bone-stock. I found them to be very similar in performance. What his car did provide was more a of a race-car feel than mine. I can see how that can be translated into a feeling of numbness, but not for one second did it make me think about it as far as a negative on my car.
It achieves almost identical daily-driving performance (I cannot judge 10/10ths performance since I did not drive it that hard) with a bit more comfort. I personally prefer it that way. I see it as a good thing unless you plan on tracking/autoxing the car regularly.
Frankly, given the roads around here, the "harshness" on my 330i is about the most I am willing to tolerate on a daily commuter than I don't plan on tracking/autoxing regularly. But of course, that s just me.
Doesn't really matter. The E36 M3 was rated at 240hp, while the 330i was rated at 225 hp IIRC. About 235 for the ZHP, if I'm not mistaken. Either way, they're really darn close. Most drivers would probably get exactly the same straight-line performance out of both of them.
The point is, as you said, that the two cars are very similar in performance. My '99 felt more racy to me, though, and I really liked its interior. The E46 is impressive in its own ways, which makes it kind of a wash unless you have a strong preference one way or another.
You guys are missing the most important difference between the two cars. The e36 M3 has the LSD. The 330 zhp does not. It makes a WORLD of difference.
Plaz, I found the zhp to be too compliant with too much body roll when I test drove it. I suspect (but do not know) that your car is stiffer and rolls less. But remember, I hate body roll with a passion not normally seen among body roll haters. The M3, even with the modded suspension, rolled a little more than I liked. It wasn't much. I drove a stock suspension 97 home from what ended up being my last drive in the m (except the new owner is coming by this weekend, so maybe not . . .) and boy, what a difference. But I still would have liked less. Even though objectively it doesn't indicate how well the car handles at all.
zcasavant
01-20-2005, 09:56 PM
A 330i is just a hair slower than an E36 M3, is more comfortable inside, and is far quieter. It's also more numb, feels heavier, and is not as much fun as the E36. The E36, in turn, is not quite as much fun as the E30.
But, objectively, the E46 is the best 3-series platform that BMW have produced to date.
Is this your run of the mill 330i or a ZHP 330i? I say this because I drove zach's car briefly and I believe his is bone-stock. I found them to be very similar in performance. What his car did provide was more a of a race-car feel than mine. I can see how that can be translated into a feeling of numbness, but not for one second did it make me think about it as far as a negative on my car.
It achieves almost identical daily-driving performance (I cannot judge 10/10ths performance since I did not drive it that hard) with a bit more comfort. I personally prefer it that way. I see it as a good thing unless you plan on tracking/autoxing the car regularly.
Frankly, given the roads around here, the "harshness" on my 330i is about the most I am willing to tolerate on a daily commuter than I don't plan on tracking/autoxing regularly. But of course, that s just me.
Doesn't really matter. The E36 M3 was rated at 240hp, while the 330i was rated at 225 hp IIRC. About 235 for the ZHP, if I'm not mistaken. Either way, they're really darn close. Most drivers would probably get exactly the same straight-line performance out of both of them.
The point is, as you said, that the two cars are very similar in performance. My '99 felt more racy to me, though, and I really liked its interior. The E46 is impressive in its own ways, which makes it kind of a wash unless you have a strong preference one way or another.
You guys are missing the most important difference between the two cars. The e36 M3 has the LSD. The 330 zhp does not. It makes a WORLD of difference.
Plaz, I found the zhp to be too compliant with too much body roll when I test drove it. I suspect (but do not know) that your car is stiffer and rolls less. But remember, I hate body roll with a passion not normally seen among body roll haters. The M3, even with the modded suspension, rolled a little more than I liked. It wasn't much. I drove a stock suspension 97 home from what ended up being my last drive in the m (except the new owner is coming by this weekend, so maybe not . . .) and boy, what a difference. But I still would have liked less. Even though objectively it doesn't indicate how well the car handles at all.
The 330i zhp just doesn't "feel" as fast as my car. My girlfriend and I both drove mbr's car several months ago and like it a lot. It wasn't until on the way home in the M3 that my girlfriend said, out of the blue, "not enough low-end torque" (and thus established herself as a keeper).
She's right, though. It felt heavy. I'm sure a lot of the "slowness" is attributable to taller gearing in the 330.
All of this said, I still want to drive another e46. I want to like it.
lemming
01-20-2005, 10:39 PM
A 330i is just a hair slower than an E36 M3, is more comfortable inside, and is far quieter. It's also more numb, feels heavier, and is not as much fun as the E36. The E36, in turn, is not quite as much fun as the E30.
But, objectively, the E46 is the best 3-series platform that BMW have produced to date.
Is this your run of the mill 330i or a ZHP 330i? I say this because I drove zach's car briefly and I believe his is bone-stock. I found them to be very similar in performance. What his car did provide was more a of a race-car feel than mine. I can see how that can be translated into a feeling of numbness, but not for one second did it make me think about it as far as a negative on my car.
It achieves almost identical daily-driving performance (I cannot judge 10/10ths performance since I did not drive it that hard) with a bit more comfort. I personally prefer it that way. I see it as a good thing unless you plan on tracking/autoxing the car regularly.
Frankly, given the roads around here, the "harshness" on my 330i is about the most I am willing to tolerate on a daily commuter than I don't plan on tracking/autoxing regularly. But of course, that s just me.
Doesn't really matter. The E36 M3 was rated at 240hp, while the 330i was rated at 225 hp IIRC. About 235 for the ZHP, if I'm not mistaken. Either way, they're really darn close. Most drivers would probably get exactly the same straight-line performance out of both of them.
The point is, as you said, that the two cars are very similar in performance. My '99 felt more racy to me, though, and I really liked its interior. The E46 is impressive in its own ways, which makes it kind of a wash unless you have a strong preference one way or another.
You guys are missing the most important difference between the two cars. The e36 M3 has the LSD. The 330 zhp does not. It makes a WORLD of difference.
Plaz, I found the zhp to be too compliant with too much body roll when I test drove it. I suspect (but do not know) that your car is stiffer and rolls less. But remember, I hate body roll with a passion not normally seen among body roll haters. The M3, even with the modded suspension, rolled a little more than I liked. It wasn't much. I drove a stock suspension 97 home from what ended up being my last drive in the m (except the new owner is coming by this weekend, so maybe not . . .) and boy, what a difference. But I still would have liked less. Even though objectively it doesn't indicate how well the car handles at all.
The 330i zhp just doesn't "feel" as fast as my car. My girlfriend and I both drove mbr's car several months ago and like it a lot. It wasn't until on the way home in the M3 that my girlfriend said, out of the blue, "not enough low-end torque" (and thus established herself as a keeper).
She's right, though. It felt heavy. I'm sure a lot of the "slowness" is attributable to taller gearing in the 330.
All of this said, I still want to drive another e46. I want to like it.
the stock 330 rear end is only 2.93:1; the zhp is what? 3.15:1? imagine a 330 with a 3.23 rear end or even a 3.36:1.
the issue is that the e36m3 engine has more displacement but to me, it always feel a lot more cammy compared to the e46 3.0 litre engine. if you put the dual vanos to work with an aggressive rear end, it would definitely reshuffle the equation to favor the 330.....other than steering feel and visceral driving experience.
the e36 (and the e30 even more so) still feel more fun to drive --but the e46 is likely faster in many metrics.
look at it this way, with regard to the e90, it can't get WORSE than the e46, can it? in terms of isolation from the road? it will be stiffer and faster. (fingers crossed).
in 2005 terms, the e30m3 is overrated. that is just a fact of the a sliding bar to the right. in terms of its era, it was the paradigm. i see both sides of it, but if i had the choice between a ZHP and the e30m3, i'd still go with the e46 because of the flatter power curve, the better chassis and because it's flat out faster.
the last fun BMW i have driven in my own memory is the M coupe. all of these new ones feel like too much "hairdresser on fire" and not enough "how soon is now".
in 2005 terms, the e30m3 is overrated. that is just a fact of the a sliding bar to the right. in terms of its era, it was the paradigm. i see both sides of it, but if i had the choice between a ZHP and the e30m3, i'd still go with the e46 because of the flatter power curve, the better chassis and because it's flat out faster.
FYI...I've always thought the E30 M3 was overrated, even in 1988. I thought it looked ghetto when compared to an E30 325is and trust me I tried my hardest to convince my family at the age of 17 that I needed one, it never happened...lol. I purchased the M3 this past spring for one sole reason, to hopefully make a profit many, many years down the road. How many E30 M3's have you heard of that were displayed in the only BMW owned museum in the country, have exceptionally low mileage, 1 previous owner who was more anal than myself, all records, books and even a window sticker which was never affixed to the window because the 1st owner picked the car up at port himself and drove it back to the dealership. Anyways...that is beside the point.
This was never about choosing a E30 M3 over a E36 M3 or even a E46 ZHP or M3 (in fact this thread got OT...oh well) Hell, I'd take a ZHP sedan over the E30 M3 any day. I was simply stating above that the E30 M3 has a history, a large racing one at that and that production was far more limited than the aforementioned, add in the fact that only 5,000 where imported between 1988-1991 and you have a vehicle that is going to become very rare. This certainly will make it worth something whereas this will never be the case with the E36 M3 (with possible exception to the sedan) and the E46 M3.
However, the fact that they made a shitload of E36 M3s (which assures they will never have any value to a collector) makes them an awesome car to use as a daily driver commuter. You feel no need to baby it or keep the miles off. Just drive the piss out of it and enjoy it.
However, the fact that they made a shitload of E36 M3s (which assures they will never have any value to a collector) makes them an awesome car to use as a daily driver commuter. You feel no need to baby it or keep the miles off. Just drive the piss out of it and enjoy it.
Exactly one of the reasons why I've been looking at E36 M3 sedans. For the right price and color (white, red or silver) I just might have a replacement for the E34. ;)
Just a reminder or an FYI, but the E30 M3 - S14 won 1400+ races. Can't say that about the E36 M3 nor the E46 M3. Plus worldwide production of both the E36 & E46 M3 are far greater than the 17,XXX E30 M3s produced.
True enough, but my SVT Focus turns in better numbers (okay, it's slower to 60 by a fraction of a second) than the '88 M3. Plus, my Focus is stiffer, is more comfortable inside, and seats four plus a reasonable cargo load in back. Sure, I'd rather have the E30 in the long haul.
And as for production numbers, I don't care. The E30 M3 was made to be driven hard, and I've driven every one of my cars as hard as they want to be driven. I've never felt guilty about it, either. I take good enough care of my cars that they probably look better than the "gently" owned models after a few years.
The E30 M3 was made to be driven hard, and I've driven every one of my cars as hard as they want to be driven. I've never felt guilty about it, either. I take good enough care of my cars that they probably look better than the "gently" owned models after a few years.
Well...apparently my M3 has seen some autocross time by it's former owner, a CCA Chapter Prez. :?
One of the former techs @ our local BMW Center says he saw the M3 out on the track at the Performance Center while he was there for BMW Tech training and stated that they were driving the piss out of it, I'm sure the former owner would have loved that. Apparently BMW pulls some of those cars out of the Zentrum and drives them just to keep things in check.
in 2005 terms, the e30m3 is overrated. that is just a fact of the a sliding bar to the right. in terms of its era, it was the paradigm. i see both sides of it, but if i had the choice between a ZHP and the e30m3, i'd still go with the e46 because of the flatter power curve, the better chassis and because it's flat out faster.
FYI...I've always thought the E30 M3 was overrated, even in 1988. I thought it looked ghetto when compared to an E30 325is and trust me I tried my hardest to convince my family at the age of 17 that I needed one, it never happened...lol. I purchased the M3 this past spring for one sole reason, to hopefully make a profit many, many years down the road. How many E30 M3's have you heard of that were displayed in the only BMW owned museum in the country, have exceptionally low mileage, 1 previous owner who was more anal than myself, all records, books and even a window sticker which was never affixed to the window because the 1st owner picked the car up at port himself and drove it back to the dealership. Anyways...that is beside the point.
This was never about choosing a E30 M3 over a E36 M3 or even a E46 ZHP or M3 (in fact this thread got OT...oh well) Hell, I'd take a ZHP sedan over the E30 M3 any day. I was simply stating above that the E30 M3 has a history, a large racing one at that and that production was far more limited than the aforementioned, add in the fact that only 5,000 where imported between 1988-1991 and you have a vehicle that is going to become very rare. This certainly will make it worth something whereas this will never be the case with the E36 M3 (with possible exception to the sedan) and the E46 M3.
Worth something, perhaps. Worth how much, though? How much is an M1 worth? How much is that in inflation adjusted dollars? What would a similar amount invested have made over the past 25 years?
Worth something, perhaps. Worth how much, though? How much is an M1 worth? How much is that in inflation adjusted dollars? What would a similar amount invested have made over the past 25 years?
Hopefully worth more than I gave for it. I honestly don't think it will take that long (25+ years). In 3 years it will qualify as an antique. ;)
Worth something, perhaps. Worth how much, though? How much is an M1 worth? How much is that in inflation adjusted dollars? What would a similar amount invested have made over the past 25 years?
Hopefully worth more than I gave for it. I honestly don't think it will take that long (25+ years). In 3 years it will qualify as an antique. ;)
Strictly in terms of money, you will probably get more than you paid for it in short order. It's that kind of car. The same amount of money invested with a reasonable amount of risk, however, would probably net you more. There aren't too many cars out there that can beat the market, Barrett-Jackson aside.
That said, there's a large intangible part to car collecting and car ownership. There has to be, otherwise people would've stopped mothballing special-but-tired and not-so-special cars ages ago. My father-in-law has a friend who live around the block from him, who bought a '67 GTO, a '70 Judge, and a '78 Corvette (anniversary edition) all brand new. After driving each of the Goats for maybe a couple of thousand miles, one is currently parked in his garage under a mountain of boxes, and the other is parked on the driveway in front of the garage under a blue tarp and a random pile of things depending on the day. Neither has seen the ignition key in 25 years, according to the f-i-l. As far as the Vette...he bought it from some dealership new, had it shipped to him on a flatbed, then rolled it to a stop and kept it there. It was never titled. He sold it about five years ago for a fraction of what he paid.
Oh, the humanity.
Worth something, perhaps. Worth how much, though? How much is an M1 worth? How much is that in inflation adjusted dollars? What would a similar amount invested have made over the past 25 years?
Hopefully worth more than I gave for it. I honestly don't think it will take that long (25+ years). In 3 years it will qualify as an antique. ;)
Strictly in terms of money, you will probably get more than you paid for it in short order. It's that kind of car. The same amount of money invested with a reasonable amount of risk, however, would probably net you more. There aren't too many cars out there that can beat the market, Barrett-Jackson aside.
That said, there's a large intangible part to car collecting and car ownership. There has to be, otherwise people would've stopped mothballing special-but-tired and not-so-special cars ages ago. My father-in-law has a friend who live around the block from him, who bought a '67 GTO, a '70 Judge, and a '78 Corvette (anniversary edition) all brand new. After driving each of the Goats for maybe a couple of thousand miles, one is currently parked in his garage under a mountain of boxes, and the other is parked on the driveway in front of the garage under a blue tarp and a random pile of things depending on the day. Neither has seen the ignition key in 25 years, according to the f-i-l. As far as the Vette...he bought it from some dealership new, had it shipped to him on a flatbed, then rolled it to a stop and kept it there. It was never titled. He sold it about five years ago for a fraction of what he paid.
Oh, the humanity.
HOLY CRAP!!! I want that 70 Judge!!! :evil:
I had a 71 GTO, WAY back when and I miss that car. :(
HOLY CRAP!!! I want that 70 Judge!!! :evil:
I had a 71 GTO, WAY back when and I miss that car. :(
You and probably every other Goat enthusiast. But once you pry it out of his clutches, good luck trying to get it even to roll onto a flatbed. The tires probably resemble Lego blocks by now, and the hoses are probably just dust waiting to happen. :cry: I've thought off and on of ways to get it, though. Would be an interesting project (part of the $100k plan).
lemming
01-22-2005, 09:00 AM
HOLY CRAP!!! I want that 70 Judge!!! :evil:
I had a 71 GTO, WAY back when and I miss that car. :(
You and probably every other Goat enthusiast. But once you pry it out of his clutches, good luck trying to get it even to roll onto a flatbed. The tires probably resemble Lego blocks by now, and the hoses are probably just dust waiting to happen. :cry: I've thought off and on of ways to get it, though. Would be an interesting project (part of the $100k plan).
would guess that parts, either from spare parts available or custom fabricated, would be a lot cheaper and more accessible here in the US than for the e30m3.
again, the added "beauty" of simplicity in the "old-fashioned" engines. 'lot easier to find good hands to help restore it.
HOLY CRAP!!! I want that 70 Judge!!! :evil:
I had a 71 GTO, WAY back when and I miss that car. :(
You and probably every other Goat enthusiast. But once you pry it out of his clutches, good luck trying to get it even to roll onto a flatbed. The tires probably resemble Lego blocks by now, and the hoses are probably just dust waiting to happen. :cry: I've thought off and on of ways to get it, though. Would be an interesting project (part of the $100k plan).
would guess that parts, either from spare parts available or custom fabricated, would be a lot cheaper and more accessible here in the US than for the e30m3.
again, the added "beauty" of simplicity in the "old-fashioned" engines. 'lot easier to find good hands to help restore it.
Older engines are definitely easy to work on. Not only are there tons of parts for those classic GM lumps, the engine bays are cavernous. My '88 was easy to work on, no doubt...but I could practically fit myself and a whole engine into one of those muscle cars.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.