# Car & Driver, March 2004



## BlackChrome (Nov 16, 2003)

I just received the newest issue today. It has a feature on $35k sports-sedan comparo. Guess who took the first?

7: X-type 3.0
6: 9-3 Arc
5: A4 3.0 Quattro
4: IS300
3: TL
2: 325i
1: G35 Sedan

They said that if the 325 had more power, then it would have been the winner. Isn't that what a 330 for?  

I like this quote on the e46: "Let's just hope Chris Bangle's design work on the next generation does not end our admiration for this model."


----------



## PhilH (Jun 7, 2002)

Good issue. They also look at the CTS-V and compare it to the M3 and M5 (though I haven't read it all the way through yet). Title of the article "Is Cadillac's bad boy really a Bimmer beater?". They drive the CTS-V, M3 and M5 on public roads and at a racetrack and compare them.

edit-->ok I'll give you a snippet of the track section and the second to last paragraph



> To no one's surprise, the M3 emerged as the athlete of the trio. The combination of tidier dimensions, stiffer suspension tuning, and quarter-_ton_ less mass easily offset the disparities in horsepower and torque versus the bigger cars.





> *The bottom line* is a key element in this evaluation. As tested, the M3 and the CTS-V are about the same in price, although substantially different in character. The smaller Bimmer is essentially a sports car with a cramped back seat, whereas the Cadillac offers sedan versatility and comfort to go with its muscle. It's hard to imagine that someone interested in one of them would seriously consider the other. Yet the CTS-V and the M5 are directly comparable in everything _but_ price. Given even money, our test crew favored the M5. Then we asked ourselves the key question: Is the M5 almost $23,000 better than the Cadillac? We got a resounding _no_ to that one.


----------



## missing23 (Feb 1, 2002)

BlackChrome said:


> I just received the newest issue today. It has a feature on $35k sports-sedan comparo. Guess who took the first?
> 
> 7: X-type 3.0
> 6: 9-3 Arc
> ...


Cool, I'll have to read it as I have the real number 1 (330 ZHP) and number 2 G35 sedan in my garage!


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

Hmmm.... I wonder if my resale just went up?

I think the 330i would have taken first - but remember, it is not sub-$35K.


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

Yeah, unless you Euro Deliver a ZHP w/ no options! (and get the BMWCCA discount!) 



Emission said:


> Hmmm.... I wonder if my resale just went up?
> 
> I think the 330i would have taken first - but remember, it is not sub-$35K.


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

What were the transmissions and 0-60 times for each?


----------



## racerdave (Sep 15, 2003)

BlackChrome said:


> I just received the newest issue today. It has a feature on $35k sports-sedan comparo. Guess who took the first?
> 
> 7: X-type 3.0
> 6: 9-3 Arc
> ...


Good to hear their estimation of the 325 and IS300 matched with mine. The 325 is better.

I also prefer the 325's SP seats to the G35, so despite the power differemce, I can't say I agree... although I certainly wouldn't kick a G35 out of my garage.

But none of them are going to be able to displace the RX-8 off the top of my list. :thumbup:


----------



## PhilH (Jun 7, 2002)

Emission said:


> What were the transmissions and 0-60 times for each?


Manual transmissions in all of them.

The times look to be on the slow side for the G35 and TL, but the 325i looks spot on.

TL 0-60 5.8, 1/4 mi 14.5 @ 99 mph
A4 7.5, 15.8 @ 89
325i 7.0, 15.4 @ 91
G35 6.3, 14.6 @ 99
X-Type 7.1, 15.7 @ 90
IS300 7.3, 15.5 @ 90
9-3 7.2, 15.4 @ 94


----------



## jgrgnt (Apr 27, 2002)

PhilH said:


> Manual transmissions in all of them.
> 
> The times look to be on the slow side for the G35 and TL, but the 325i looks spot on.
> 
> ...


Woah, that TL is quick! :yikes:

Considering the 325i is the oldest of the bunch, I'd say 2nd place is quite good.


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

When we tested the g35 6-speed, it really starts to fly once it gets moving (notice the 1/4 mile speed compared to the Acura). Excellent aerodynamics and horsepower are an excellent combination for high speed acceleration.

I also found it interesting how the A4 3.0 and 325i compared under acceleration:

Audi BMW

0-60 7.5 7.0
5-60 7.5 8.0

Talk about consistent power curve for the Audi V6! My brother dumped his 325i for and Audi A4 3.0 and he swears the Audi is faster. The torque of a strong V6 really works wonders!


----------



## JST (Dec 19, 2001)

Emission said:


> When we tested the g35 6-speed, it really starts to fly once it gets moving (notice the 1/4 mile speed compared to the Acura). Excellent aerodynamics and horsepower are an excellent combination for high speed acceleration.
> 
> I also found it interesting how the A4 3.0 and 325i compared under acceleration:
> 
> ...


The Audi is also Quattro, no? That means you don't get much acceleration advantage with a clutch dump. It's not surprising that the BMW posts better times from a standstill, while the Audi's standing and rolling start times are identical. What is surprising is how damn slow the Audi is--those A4 Quattros really are pigs in the weight department, and the drivetrain loss from the AWD seems pretty substantial.


----------



## JetBlack330i (Feb 8, 2002)

I wonder why Consumer Reports has the G-35 way down in their list of sporty sedans.
I tend to believe CR more (not 100%, but more) than any of the advertising selling car mags.


----------



## Plaz (Dec 19, 2001)

JetBlack330i said:


> I wonder why Consumer Reports has the G-35 way down in their list of sporty sedans.
> I tend to believe CR more (not 100%, but more) than any of the advertising selling car mags.


I don't. Not for cars, anyway. It always seemed to me CR considers driving feel and dynamics, and all things visceral and exciting, to be mere afterthoughts when coming up with their rankings.


----------



## Technic (Jun 24, 2002)

jgrgnt said:


> Woah, that TL is quick! :yikes:
> 
> Considering the 325i is the oldest of the bunch, I'd say 2nd place is quite good.


After reading the whole article, I have the impression that the TL should have been the second place instead of the 325i. Car and Driver just _gave_ the second finish to the 325i...

Although the scores at the end of the article are subjective, I would like to see a difference of more than *one point* between the BMW and the Acura (208 vs. 207 respectively) if really the 325i rear wheel drive configuration, handling and overall satisfaction is much better than the TL's front wheel drive to deserve the second place. Other than that and it is a disservice to the readers and to the manufacturers.

Checking the scores, I see that that point of difference is located in the Value subsection in the Vehicle category. The BMW gets 9 vs. the Acura 8 points in Value. Again this is subjective, however in the same description of the Acura, C&D finds the TL boasting "the largest, best-furnished interior, the strongest engine, one of the slickest shifters, exemplary build quality and generally superior esthetics". The Acura is cheaper than the BMW (unless you get a stripper 325i), and comes better equipped... and still get less in Value?

Every other car in the comparo are between 3 and _33_ points from these two cars...

In the worst case, they should have split the second place between the two. But, if the 325i is really better than a TL, one single point does not make any sense.


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2004)

Plaz said:


> I don't. Not for cars, anyway. It always seemed to me CR considers driving feel and dynamics, and all things visceral and exciting, to be mere afterthoughts when coming up with their rankings.


 That's my take as well.

Assuming their testing is accurate, they test reliability and quality and estimated cost of ownership.

They couldn't care less about "fun" in the true enthusiast sense. And they would never understand, for example, the concept of putting up with a firm ride for the joy of the handling performance it would offer. They would just call it harsh.

Granted the guys at Car and Driver are going soft in their respective old age. But they are still hard-core enthusiasts compared to CR.


----------



## Aaron325iT (Jun 2, 2003)

I just test drove the TL last week out of curiosity (I still love my 325iT), and came away with mixed feelings. the car is VERY fast (and I mean VERY...stunning engine, it even has a Cold Air Intake fitted as standard), but the torque steer was just crazy...I tested the 6-speed version, and really liked the gearbox, but I could feel the front tires tugging the steering wheel even under moderate acceleration...it felt like the limited slip diff was struggling to transfer power from one side to the other. The fact that the roads here in Toronto are slick with snow and slush likely didn't help, but still. The interior was very nice (beautiful real metal trim). That torque steer would probably kill any deal for me, however. One thing really impressed me: the DVD-Audio stereo is truly excellent, the best I've ever heard in a car. The Acura DVD sampler disc was playing, and the surround sound was truly amazing....oh, and it's standard, not like my (optional) H/K stereo, which while still nice is NOT in the same league as the Elliot Scheiner stereo. ANother thing that impressed me was the overall value: CAN$43k for the 6 speed with NO options (everything included, a refreshing break from BMW where the just the leather option on my car was an eye-watering CAN$2400 plus tax)...if only it was RWD, I might give it a shot. I'm thinking of switching anyway.

Getting back into my car, I was amazed at the complete lack of power compared to the TL (almost 90hp difference, and it certainly shows). But, the smooth acceleration (love how the chassis just squats and launches) and the overall balance of my E46 still impressed me compared to the TL, which felt a bit numb in comparison. Also, on a fast sweeper you can tell that the TL is pretty front-biased in terms of weight distribution. Still, the TL is a very impressive package, and certainly spanks any E46 when it comes to value...of course, the residual value of the TL is likely to be a lot poorer than any E46, though.


----------



## JetBlack330i (Feb 8, 2002)

Plaz said:


> I don't. Not for cars, anyway. It always seemed to me CR considers driving feel and dynamics, and all things visceral and exciting, to be mere afterthoughts when coming up with their rankings.


If that were true, the G-35 would have ranked much higher, and the 3-series would not be at the top. If you take the handling and other visceral aspects out of the equation, the G-35 is undoubtedly a better value than the 3-series, no? :dunno:


----------



## JetBlack330i (Feb 8, 2002)

TD said:


> That's my take as well.
> 
> Assuming their testing is accurate, they test reliability and quality and estimated cost of ownership.
> 
> ...


True CR doesn't factor in fun into their ratings.
Conversely, it's also true that the car mags don't factor in reliability, cost of ownership and safety into their ratings.
As a consumer I want reliabitity, cost of ownership and safety in. I can come up with my own rating for fun during my test drive.
But that's not my peeve. My problem with them is that the car mags have no credibility with me. Their reviews are biased to promote the highest bidder of that month.
But I agree the car mags are more fun to read on the throne. But when I want to make a buying decision, I consider CR's ratings in order to come up with my own list of finalists.


----------



## Spiderm0n (Dec 19, 2001)

for the price of the G35 they tested they could have had a 330i. (seemed like BS) It is nice to know that even the 325 wipes out most of the competition though...


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2004)

JetBlack330i said:


> True CR doesn't factor in fun into their ratings.
> Conversely, it's also true that the car mags don't factor in reliability, cost of ownership and safety into their ratings.
> As a consumer I want reliabitity, cost of ownership and safety in. I can come up with my own rating for fun during my test drive.
> But that's not my peeve. My problem with them is that the car mags have no credibility with me. Their reviews are biased to promote the highest bidder of that month.
> But I agree the car mags are more fun to read on the throne. But when I want to make a buying decision, I consider CR's ratings in order to come up with my own list of finalists.


 Sounds like you've been reading Motor Trend. They DO sell positive reviews.

C&D can be accused of not being harsh on vehicles that deserved to receive harsh reviews. But they generally do appreciate an enthusiast-oriented automobile. Granted R&T and certainly all of the Euro mags take an even more enthusiast-oriented view. And C&D is getting soft. But, unlike MT, they really aren't taking cash in exchange for good reviews.


----------



## nate (Dec 24, 2001)

TD said:


> And C&D is getting soft.


Didn't they refer to the E46 M3 as "bone jarring" or some such BS? :rofl:


----------



## JST (Dec 19, 2001)

nate328Ci said:


> Didn't they refer to the E46 M3 as "bone jarring" or some such BS? :rofl:


Again, as I said in response to beewang's criticism of their review of the X3, until you've spent some time driving the lunar landscapes that are the roads in southeastern Michigan, you don't have a proper appreciation for where they're coming from. I can see how a car as buttoned-down as the stock E46 M3 might be "bone jarring" in Ann Arbor.


----------



## nate (Dec 24, 2001)

JST said:


> Again, as I said in response to beewang's criticism of their review of the X3, until you've spent some time driving the lunar landscapes that are the roads in southeastern Michigan, you don't have a proper appreciation for where they're coming from. I can see how a car as buttoned-down as the stock E46 M3 might be "bone jarring" in Ann Arbor.


 Have you forgotten that New Orleans is significantly worse?


----------



## JST (Dec 19, 2001)

nate328Ci said:


> Have you forgotten that New Orleans is significantly worse?


New Orleans really isn't as bad. The roads down there aren't well maintained, but you don't have the frost heave problem that Michigan does. Some roads in the DC area get close, though.


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

TD said:


> Sounds like you've been reading Motor Trend. They DO sell positive reviews.


Where was this established? :dunno:


----------



## brave1heart (Jan 7, 2002)

I think the article was fair. The G35 seems like a good car and it does offer a lot for the money. The acceleration numbers were consistent with past reviews and so were braking numbers but I was VERY surprised at the consistently high skidpad numbers on ALL cars. In the Jan '01 issue of C&D, the 325i SP pulled in .86 g on the skidpad with Contisports. Then they fitted it with SO3s and the skidpad number was the same (braking was much better, though!!). In the March '04 test, the car pulled in .89 on the skidpad with Michelin Pilots. There is no way these tires would make such a huge difference over the SO3s - it must have been the weather conditions... The IS300 came up at .87, the G35 at .90 with 55 profile tires - it sounds too high.

As far as the 325i vs. the G35, if we take out the HP difference, I doubt I'd personally find anything else that would make me prefer it over the 325. The BMW looks better inside and out, is more composed, is 200 lbs lighter, is 10+ inches shorter!!, and it is a great platform to build on. I'd be curious to see a comparo on lap times.


----------



## Buff_AGM (Sep 25, 2002)

Ok enough talk about mere 35k sedans  . Anyone read a little further into their C&D and get to the article on the MB SL 600? A 4600lbs car that goes from 0-60mph in _3.6_ seconds...100mph in 8.6, 1/4 mile in 11.9 at 120mph...is that even possible? I've never heard of #'s like this in a standard production car weighing even close to that much. The SL 65 takes this to levels that are simply unthinkable..how many other car makers have a veritable fleet of 200mph cars? If MB ever gets the chassis right, things could get real ugly...


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

Buff_AGM said:


> If MB ever gets the chassis right, things could get real ugly...


A few 6-speed manual transmissions wouldn't hurt either.


----------



## e46shift (Oct 12, 2002)

evo would've killed them all :angel:


----------



## Patrick330i (Sep 30, 2002)

Technic said:


> After reading the whole article, I have the impression that the TL should have been the second place instead of the 325i. Car and Driver just _gave_ the second finish to the 325i...
> 
> Although the scores at the end of the article are subjective, I would like to see a difference of more than *one point* between the BMW and the Acura (208 vs. 207 respectively) if really the 325i rear wheel drive configuration, handling and overall satisfaction is much better than the TL's front wheel drive to deserve the second place. Other than that and it is a disservice to the readers and to the manufacturers.
> 
> ...


Well, the TL might be the better car on a wide open freeway in the city. Did you notice the commentary regarding road feel of the TL and how it was jerky and bumpy (paraphrasing)? That factor usually doesn't sit well with the C&D guys, so it didn't surprise me that the 325 beat it out. It's that "fun-to-drive" element that is hard to quantify, but I understood their point. No knock on the TL. Passed one today on the freeway, which was being driven in quite the docile fashion.

Regarding the article itself, I was kind of surprised that the 325 placed as well as it did in light of all the 3.0+ competition that it faced. Again, speaks volumes of BMW's engineering. I suspect that one reason why the 325i was used, though, was to have it lose. C&D has taken a lot of criticism for being in love with BMWs. There were at least two other cars tested in the comparo that were over $35k. My 330i at $38k would have been the most expensive, but not completely out of range I don't think. The ZHP? That's another story. Apparently, C&D implicitly stated that the 330i would have won the comparo, at least that is what I got out of it with the "additional power" comment. In the end, I am satisfied given the circumstances of the situation.

And I TOTALLY agree with the Bangle comment.


----------



## racerdave (Sep 15, 2003)

I'm not surprised at all that the 325 placed as high as it did despite the power deficit.

With the TL and G35 as exceptions, there simply isn't much of a real-world power deficit. The 325's power curve is broad for a 2.5-litre engine. I've cross-shopped the IS300 and 325 a lot and the numbers don't lie... the BMW does the same thing with 0.5-of-a-litre less.

Plus, the dynamics are great. If you guys with the 325's and 330's don't know that already, then God help you. 

The things that CD loves about it -- the balance, feel and ride/handling mix -- are truly outstanding in the E46. And the reason I give it a :thumbup:

I'd go with it over all the others in the comparo any day.


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

The only problem I have with the 325i is the ugly body kit and rims - otherwise I'd buy one over a 330i. The ZHP option also makes the 330 more attractive though.


----------



## racerdave (Sep 15, 2003)

Actually, you can get the M-spec front spoiler, which helps.

And, the 325 now comes with 5-spoke wheels... which IMHO look better than the ones in the test.


----------



## KevinM (May 2, 2003)

BMW seems to be a on slide in terms of rankings in these comparison tests lately. I'm not sure how much stock to put in any of it, and one can always look for and find reasons why the BMW didn't win, but still... I am so used to BMWs always comming out on top that I'm not sure what to make of it! :eeps: 

A few issues ago, the S4 topped the M3 and the RS6 (with an AUTO transmission, no less) topped the M5 in a C&D comparison...Hell must have froze over on that day.

Kevin


----------



## Cal (Jan 4, 2002)

Hey Chris,

You need to get yourself that ZHP...I think you've waited long enough.  


Dawg90 said:


> The only problem I have with the 325i is the ugly body kit and rims - otherwise I'd buy one over a 330i. The ZHP option also makes the 330 more attractive though.


----------



## MR325iT (Feb 21, 2002)

KevinM said:


> BMW seems to be a on slide in terms of rankings in these comparison tests


I don't see this as a sign BMW is sliding (except in the styling department) - instead I think the competition is generally getting better, and they know where to attack BMW: value.

The IS300 was(IMHO) the first japanese car to ever be a serious contender against the 3-series. The G35 is a great all around car. The Audi's - though down on power - are great cars too. The TL is pretty good with FWD, imagine how great it would be in RWD if Honda ever decided to get really serious.

Granted, I wouldn't dump my 325 for any of them at the moment, but its good to know the competition now has the potential to make BMW better.


----------



## racerdave (Sep 15, 2003)

Yep, I gotta agree with that.

If there was never an E30, or E36 ot E46, those other cars might never have been built. BMW raised the bar for everyone and all sport sedan consumers benefit.

Now all the competitors are keeping BMW honest.

That's a good thing.


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

Cal said:


> Hey Chris,
> 
> You need to get yourself that ZHP...I think you've waited long enough.


Haha, Cal, god you are right! But I just bought a condo with the GF, so the plans are delayed! I have until Aug 2005 when they stop making the E46, the last good looking BMW.


----------



## Moderato (Nov 24, 2003)

I have that issue too, they basically said that the only reason they tested the 325 was to give the other cars a chance. They also said the only reason the 325 lost to the G35 was because of the power difference, other then that it was the better car in almost all categories. Sorry, but I'll take a 325 over a G35 any day of the week.


----------



## EdCT (Mar 14, 2002)

Patrick330i said:


> Well, the TL might be the better car on a wide open freeway in the city. Did you notice the commentary regarding road feel of the TL and how it was jerky and bumpy (paraphrasing)?


I've owned many Hondas over the years. They never seemed to have the suspensions quite sorted out.

Surprising given the sophistication of the designs and parts.

How BMW manages to get so much from Mac Struts is impressive, indeed.

Ed


----------



## EdCT (Mar 14, 2002)

Plaz said:


> I don't. Not for cars, anyway. It always seemed to me CR considers driving feel and dynamics, and all things visceral and exciting, to be mere afterthoughts when coming up with their rankings.


True enough, but I always like to balance what I learn about cars from enthusiast sources with CR.

CR is like the voice in your ear telling you what you don't want to hear.

Also, where else can I learn about which dishwashing detergent is best? :rofl:

Ed


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

Moderato said:


> I have that issue too, they basically said that the only reason they tested the 325 was to give the other cars a chance. They also said the only reason the 325 lost to the G35 was because of the power difference, other then that it was the better car in almost all categories. Sorry, but I'll take a 325 over a G35 any day of the week.


I drove that exact same burgundy Infiniti G35 featured in Car and Driver a few months ago when I reviewed it for FreshAlloy (my test gear got 6.25 seconds to 60, C&D got 6.3  )

http://freshalloy.com/site/cars/infiniti/2003/g35/pureperf/home.shtml

My quote: *"For the price, there isn't anything on the market that can offer as much space, power, and pure performance as the Infiniti G35 sedan."*

Prove me wrong.


----------



## EdCT (Mar 14, 2002)

Emission said:


> My quote: *"For the price, there isn't anything on the market that can offer as much space, power, and pure performance as the Infiniti G35 sedan."*
> 
> Prove me wrong.


"For the price", that may be true, but somehow, this is a car I could NEVER get excited about purchasing, for ANY price.

To me, the current crop of Nissans have cheap, plasticky interiors and shoddy construction. The Z I pored over at the NYC show last year had flimsy doors as well.

You get what you pay for.

Ed


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

EdCT said:


> "For the price", that may be true, but somehow, this is a car I could NEVER get excited about purchasing, for ANY price.
> 
> To me, the current crop of Nissans have cheap, plasticky interiors and shoddy construction. The Z I pored over at the NYC show last year had flimsy doors as well.
> 
> ...


I've never said the G35 is better than the E46. In fact, it isn't. The E46 is more refined and more tossable. The interior (as you pointed out) is better as well. I'd never consider taking my G35 on the track, it's just too big (nearly a foot longer than the E46 - 5-series size!).

But, for the money, the G35 is 9/10ths a BMW for a lot less cash. It is also rocket fast (check out the 0-120 times).


----------



## Mr. Sparkle (Dec 4, 2002)

Aaron325iT said:


> I just test drove the TL last week out of curiosity (I still love my 325iT), and came away with mixed feelings. the car is VERY fast (and I mean VERY...stunning engine, it even has a Cold Air Intake fitted as standard), but the torque steer was just crazy...I tested the 6-speed version, and really liked the gearbox, but I could feel the front tires tugging the steering wheel even under moderate acceleration...it felt like the limited slip diff was struggling to transfer power from one side to the other.


I drove a TL this past weekend and I agree 100%. If this car was RWD I'd seriously consider getting one. The torque steer was REALLY bad.


----------



## flashinthepan (Jul 25, 2003)

Aaron325iT said:


> I just test drove the TL last week out of curiosity (I still love my 325iT), and came away with mixed feelings. the car is VERY fast (and I mean VERY...stunning engine, it even has a Cold Air Intake fitted as standard), but the torque steer was just crazy...I tested the 6-speed version, and really liked the gearbox, but I could feel the front tires tugging the steering wheel even under moderate acceleration...it felt like the limited slip diff was struggling to transfer power from one side to the other. The fact that the roads here in Toronto are slick with snow and slush likely didn't help, but still. The interior was very nice (beautiful real metal trim). That torque steer would probably kill any deal for me, however. One thing really impressed me: the DVD-Audio stereo is truly excellent, the best I've ever heard in a car. The Acura DVD sampler disc was playing, and the surround sound was truly amazing....oh, and it's standard, not like (optional) H/K stereo, which while still nice is NOT in the same league as the Elliot Scheiner stereo. ANother thing that impressed me was the overall value: CAN$43k for the 6 speed with NO options (everything included, a refreshing break from BMW where the just the leather option on my car was an eye-watering CAN$2400 plus tax)...if only it was RWD, I might give it a shot. I'm thinking of switching anyway.


Your observations are dead on with my opinions, if Acura engineered this to be a Rear-wheel drive it would be a dead heat with the 330i & 330ZHP's, but I just cant shake the FWD feeling, the TL interior's are immaculate and IMO better than the 3's in luxury/Quality. Body style is not as pretty.

I still take a Bimmer, but the TL is a solid value.


----------



## EdCT (Mar 14, 2002)

Emission said:


> I've never said the G35 is better than the E46. In fact, it isn't. The E46 is more refined and more tossable. The interior (as you pointed out) is better as well. I'd never consider taking my G35 on the track, it's just too big (nearly a foot longer than the E46 - 5-series size!).
> 
> But, for the money, the G35 is 9/10ths a BMW for a lot less cash. It is also rocket fast (check out the 0-120 times).


Ooops, I forgot you were an owner (you buy too many cars too frequently, I can't keep up); don't take my impressions of the Nissan personally ( I don't think you did).

Ed


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

EdCT said:


> Ooops, I forgot you were an owner (you buy too many cars too frequently, I can't keep up); don't take my impressions of the Nissan personally ( I don't think you did).
> 
> Ed


It's just a machine. I'd never take it personally! :thumbup:


----------



## Grey Coupe (Nov 15, 2003)

*You're right; New Orleans has no Frost Heave,*

but having driven both, I would say Swamp Sink is even worst than Frost Heave...some think it's a curse from having paved over ancient burial grounds. Whatever, they are awful roads. Happy Mardi Gras.


----------



## Chendol (Jul 15, 2003)

Hope this will wake BMW up!

I think they're getting too arrogant. Bad styling (7 series rear end, new 5 series), poor quality, lousy design (see I-drive) and no wonder they're sliding down the rankings. Even the 7 series lost to a Jag and a Lexus on another CD comparo! :tsk: 

If Acura will finally get their act together and offer RWD TL, I will seriously consider. Until that time comes, I'll still love my 330


----------



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

Chendol said:


> Hope this will wake BMW up!
> 
> I think they're getting too arrogant. Bad styling (7 series rear end, new 5 series), poor quality, lousy design (see I-drive) and no wonder they're sliding down the rankings. Even the 7 series lost to a Jag and a Lexus on another CD comparo! :tsk:
> 
> If Acura will finally get their act together and offer RWD TL, I will seriously consider. Until that time comes, I'll still love my 330


I don't understand what "arrogance" has to do with this. Arrogance implies lazy product development and a lackadaisical attitude to the design and engineering process, relying on historical superiority and an assumption that people will just keep buying its cars regardless.

Say what you like about the design, but what we're seeing is the opposite, is it not? If the design is sub-optimal and hard to adapt to, that's one thing, but it's got nothing to do with being arrogant.

What might wake BMW up to the challenges of the heavy luxury sector is the continued lukewarm response to the new 7, with the new Jag and Audi A8 both proving to be more than capable alternatives.


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

I agree, I don't think it's arrogance. Arrogance is Lexus trying to sell the same aging IS300 4 years later with the only improvements being color trim on the leather seats. Arrogance is Honda putting bigger and bigger engines in a front drive chassis cause buyers are too clueless to know the difference. Arrogance is automakers adding a simple AWD system to a front driver rather than paying for a new rear-drive platform.

Misguided, but not arrogant. Listen to Bangle talk, he's very impressive and convincing - they just got hoodwinked.


----------



## 330Legend (Feb 9, 2004)

I tested several of the cars mentioned in the article and the choice came down to the G35sedan and the 330i. I went with the 330 because of solid feel and sense of security that was transmitted during hard acceleration. The G35 was monster fast, but the suspension didn't feel like it could really handle the power. Accelerating hard didn't give me a thrill so much as a fright. I had no real sense of being in controll of the power. The 330 was just pure joy. It is as fast as I need a car to go, and at no time did I feel that I wasn't in complete control.


----------



## Chendol (Jul 15, 2003)

andy_thomas said:


> Arrogance implies lazy product development and a lackadaisical attitude to the design and engineering process, relying on historical superiority and an assumption that people will just keep buying its cars regardless.


This is exactly what I mean. Maybe they're not lackadaisical but they don't seem to be listening to their customers and what their competitors are doing. Basically, take or leave it attitude, again, e.g. i-drive, 5-series design, quality, not to mention crappy dealer service which they don't seem to care about.

BMW has been resting on their laurels on their brand mystique and driving qualities but the competitors are catching up on that as well.


----------



## Patrick330i (Sep 30, 2002)

Chendol said:


> This is exactly what I mean. Maybe they're not lackadaisical but they don't seem to be listening to their customers and what their competitors are doing. Basically, take or leave it attitude, again, e.g. i-drive, 5-series design, quality, not to mention crappy dealer service which they don't seem to care about.
> 
> BMW has been resting on their laurels on their brand mystique and driving qualities but the competitors are catching up on that as well.


Well, there is always two sides to a coin. Who is BMW listening to? I mean, who is their target audience. On the one hand, you have people like us who are mostly enthusiasts who love our cars for their driveability, performance, handling, and general engineering, but on the other hand, there are others who buy a BMW because ____________ (fill in the blank with a reason other than that listed above). This has been an ongoing issue for awhile. To be continued, so stay tuned.


----------



## ChrisTO (Jan 24, 2002)

If BMW engineers truly are ingenious, they'll come up with a better car. After all it took the competitors are number of years to finally knock BMW off the top position. 

Let's hope BMW doesn't disappoint.


----------



## Jayhox (Jan 16, 2002)

We have an Infinity FX35 (KICKS ASS!!!) and we had a G35 loaner for a few days. The G354 *DID NOT* kick ass. I hated it. Compared to my former E46 325Ci the thing felt like I was riding up on a set of New York City phone books. The steering felt nice, but the rest of the car was pretty poor. The steering had feel, but I had no other feel for the road at all compared to the 325.

Now, the best comparison I have of the FX35 is an E39 5-series. Great handling, looks, ride, power. :thumbup: I absolutely love our FX and I am not much of a Japanese car guy at all.


----------



## missing23 (Feb 1, 2002)

Jayhox said:


> We have an Infinity FX35 (KICKS ASS!!!) and we had a G35 loaner for a few days. The G354 *DID NOT* kick ass. I hated it. Compared to my former E46 325Ci the thing felt like I was riding up on a set of New York City phone books. The steering felt nice, but the rest of the car was pretty poor. The steering had feel, but I had no other feel for the road at all compared to the 325.
> 
> Now, the best comparison I have of the FX35 is an E39 5-series. Great handling, looks, ride, power. :thumbup: I absolutely love our FX and I am not much of a Japanese car guy at all.


Did that G35 have the sport suspension? Ours does and it makes a big difference over the standard suspension. Had our G on twistys this weekend and it did pretty well, pretty tight, but still no match for my ZHP mostly because the G is several more inches off the ground.


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

I still can't understand how the G35 is compared with the E46.

I am a G35 owner (6-speed manual, sport), and a former 330i owner (5-speed, SP)... and they are totally different vehicles. The G35 is E39 size, not E46.


----------



## missing23 (Feb 1, 2002)

Emission said:


> I still can't understand how the G35 is compared with the E46.
> 
> I am a G35 owner (6-speed manual, sport), and a former 330i owner (5-speed, SP)... and they are totally different vehicles. The G35 is E39 size, not E46.


Good point...I was amazed at how much bigger the G35 is when parked next to my ZHP!


----------



## racerdave (Sep 15, 2003)

Emission said:


> I still can't understand how the G35 is compared with the E46.
> 
> I am a G35 owner (6-speed manual, sport), and a former 330i owner (5-speed, SP)... and they are totally different vehicles. The G35 is E39 size, not E46.


$$$$$

and the segment (sports sedan) the car is in as well.

So how you liking your G after living with it for a while?

If I could drop Recaros into one (they don't make a fit kit yet) I might even consider the G (the seats... me no like... if they put E46 Sport seats into them I'd be interested... but maybe not enough to knock me off my RX-8 mission).


----------



## e46shift (Oct 12, 2002)

Jayhox said:


> We have an Infinity FX35 (KICKS ASS!!!) and we had a G35 loaner for a few days. The G354 *DID NOT* kick ass. I hated it. Compared to my former E46 325Ci the thing felt like I was riding up on a set of New York City phone books. The steering felt nice, but the rest of the car was pretty poor. The steering had feel, but I had no other feel for the road at all compared to the 325.
> 
> Now, the best comparison I have of the FX35 is an E39 5-series. Great handling, looks, ride, power. :thumbup: I absolutely love our FX and I am not much of a Japanese car guy at all.


the 325i is like sitting on phone books compared to the 325ci too


----------

