# 1998 M3 = 540i = 740i = 20K



## rumratt (Feb 22, 2003)

For 20K you can get a decent condition 1998 M3. 

But I seems that for the same money, you could also get a 1998 540i. :yikes: 

OR, for the same money you could have a 1998 740i. :yikes: :yikes: 

I didn't realize these were all in the same price range. Obviously they are all very different vehicles, and right now the 740 has no appeal to me (and probably the highest maintenance costs by far). But a 540i for 20K? Hmmmmm.


----------



## BlackChrome (Nov 16, 2003)

Mileage-wise?


----------



## rumratt (Feb 22, 2003)

BlackChrome said:


> Mileage-wise?


I'm talking extremely ballpark with the prices here. I'd say "normal mileage", 60-75K :dunno:


----------



## swchang (Oct 5, 2003)

rumratt said:


> For 20K you can get a decent condition 1998 M3.
> 
> But I seems that for the same money, you could also get a 1998 540i. :yikes:
> 
> ...


I didn't realize you were still in the market for a "new" car. Didn't you decide to keep your car? Is this for the wifey?

BTW, still want me to check out that car in Sterling?


----------



## rumratt (Feb 22, 2003)

swchang said:


> Didn't you decide to keep your car?


Damn, I'm busted. :rofl: Yes, I decided to keep it. But for some reason, I haven't managed to stop myself from continuing to explore my options. 



> BTW, still want me to check out that car in Sterling?


No, I'm not that serious. I'm still living in fantasy land here. Thanks a lot though. :thumbup:


----------



## Wallenrod (Nov 25, 2003)

rumratt said:


> For 20K you can get a decent condition 1998 M3.
> 
> But I seems that for the same money, you could also get a 1998 540i. :yikes:
> 
> ...


This sounds like me some time ago. I really got excited about the affordibility of used 540i s and I was looking at even younger vintages. But I will tell you this. You will be really disappointed coming from a 3 series. The car probably is great on its own and if we ever end up with bunch of kids, I may look for a nice 2003 540iT M-Sport wagon in a few years. But in comparison to E46 the car seems huge, heavy, lethargic to directional changes, soft and with uncommunicative steering. It is a very, very different vehicle and even the wonderful engine can't make up for it. I felt like driving a tank (relatively speaking obviously...) E39s look great though. 
But like I said, I would never make this switch unless I really needed the added utility of a wagon, but definitely not for a sedan. 330i is so much more of a driver's car.


----------



## swchang (Oct 5, 2003)

Wallenrod said:


> This sounds like me some time ago. I really got excited about the affordibility of used 540i s and I was looking at even younger vintages. But I will tell you this. You will be really disappointed coming from a 3 series. The car probably is great on its own and if we ever end up with bunch of kids, I may look for a nice 2003 540iT M-Sport wagon in a few years. But in comparison to E46 the car seems huge, heavy, lethargic to directional changes, soft and with uncommunicative steering. It is a very, very different vehicle and even the wonderful engine can't make up for it. I felt like driving a tank (relatively speaking obviously...) E39s look great though.
> But like I said, I would never make this switch unless I really needed the added utility of a wagon, but definitely not for a sedan. 330i is so much more of a driver's car.


Interesting, 330i > 540i? Think that about the 545i, too?

I need to go test drive one for myself, I guess. I've heard good things about the power and handling of the high-end 5ers, though.


----------



## Wallenrod (Nov 25, 2003)

swchang said:


> Interesting, 330i > 540i? Think that about the 545i, too?
> 
> I need to go test drive one for myself, I guess. I've heard good things about the power and handling of the high-end 5ers, though.


Sure. They are really different vehicles built with different purpose and market in mind. Don't just look at the price and think that something is better in absolute terms. 
Think of it this way. Mini is more involving to drive than any E46 and it is a fairly inexpensive FWD car.
Depends what you are looking for in a car. Big engined highway cruiser with globs of torque - 540i fits the bill perfectly. But an involving driver it is not. Weight is really a huge factor. I just did Mazda Rev it Up and was able to isolate it. Mazda 3s were great to drive because they were fairly light with fairly tight suspension and good tire setup. The FWD was really annoying while making trying to control the car. Then I drove an RX-8 and the handling was great and limits so much higher, just really a very underpowered car. What I am trying to say is good power in RWD package with tight suspension and weight kept in check and you have a winner. E39 lacks both in the weight departament and suspension (and steering). It was just no built to be a fun driver, Mini was. E46 is much closer to being a fun driver than E39. There is even a guy on this board who gave up E39 M5 for E46 330i ZHP and claims the 3er is much more fun. I know M5 improves in suspension and steering but it is still a very very heavy car. Ever wondered why racing cars are so light


----------



## swchang (Oct 5, 2003)

Wallenrod said:


> Sure. They are really different vehicles built with different purpose and market in mind. Don't just look at the price and think that something is better in absolute terms.
> Think of it this way. Mini is more involving to drive than any E46 and it is a fairly inexpensive FWD car.
> Depends what you are looking for in a car. Big engined highway cruiser with globs of torque - 540i fits the bill perfectly. But an involving driver it is not. Weight is really a huge factor. I just did Mazda Rev it Up and was able to isolate it. Mazda 3s were great to drive because they were fairly light with fairly tight suspension and good tire setup. The FWD was really annoying while making trying to control the car. Then I drove an RX-8 and the handling was great and limits so much higher, just really a very underpowered car. What I am trying to say is good power in RWD package with tight suspension and weight kept in check and you have a winner. E39 lacks both in the weight departament and suspension (and steering). It was just no built to be a fun driver, Mini was. E46 is much closer to being a fun driver than E39. There is even a guy on this board who gave up E39 M5 for E46 330i ZHP and claims the 3er is much more fun. I know M5 improves in suspension and steering but it is still a very very heavy car. Ever wondered why racing cars are so light


I think you might have me wrong. I'm not looking at price or hp/torque as a benchmark. I don't even think I'd ever want a bigger car than a 3-series or C-class. It's just I've heard from people, in particular people on this board, who said the 545i/540i is a great car both handling and power-wise. I guess it's all relative (to weight), though...

Anyway, like I said, I'll have to test drive one before I form any real opinions of my own.


----------



## Wallenrod (Nov 25, 2003)

swchang said:


> I think you might have me wrong. I'm not looking at price or hp/torque as a benchmark. I don't even think I'd ever want a bigger car than a 3-series or C-class. It's just I've heard from people, in particular people on this board, who said the 545i/540i is a great car both handling and power-wise. I guess it's all relative (to weight), though...
> 
> Anyway, like I said, I'll have to test drive one before I form any real opinions of my own.


I would think 545i has different driving characteristics than 540i since one is E60 and the other E39 platform. Among many differences, they use completely different steering systems (E39 has a recirculating ball) so right away they should feel very differently. I have not driven any E60. As for E39, like I said, it is a very different car from E46. Based on my preferences, E46 is a clear winner.
I really wish they kept E46 smaller though. Look how it grew in one decade when you compare it to E30. I guess 1 series sedan is the answer for people like me. I just wish it looked normal instead of this deformed monstrocity we see in spy photos. I would have probably waited for one.


----------



## swchang (Oct 5, 2003)

Wallenrod said:


> I would think 545i has different driving characteristics than 540i since one is E60 and the other E39 platform. Among many differences, they use completely different steering systems (E39 has a recirculating ball) so right away they should feel very differently. I have not driven any E60. As for E39, like I said, it is a very different car from E46. Based on my preferences, E46 is a clear winner.
> I really wish they kept E46 smaller though. Look how it grew in one decade when you compare it to E30. I guess 1 series sedan is the answer for people like me. I just wish it looked normal instead of this deformed monstrocity we see in spy photos. I would have probably waited for one.


The growth seems to be a car industry-wide phenomenon. I'm guessing it's because they keep making the engines larger and more powerful, and eventually need to grow the car to fit it in... Didn't the first 5-series and their predecessors start at around current 3er sizes? :tsk:


----------



## OBS3SSION (Oct 1, 2002)

I dunno about the 330 <-> 540 difference. My 330i is a wonderful car. I drove a 540iT at an Ultimate Drive last summer, and was blown away at how much fun it was! Large and heavy? Sure. But fun too. No lack of power... enough to chirp tires at will, and handled real well. In the short 15-20 minutes that I had it, I found that I might have even preferred the way it handled over my 330i. And to top it all off, you get loads of practicality with the wagon.I will definitely consider picking up a '03 540iT M-Sport when my lease is up 2 years from now.


----------



## JST (Dec 19, 2001)

Wallenrod said:


> This sounds like me some time ago. I really got excited about the affordibility of used 540i s and I was looking at even younger vintages. But I will tell you this. You will be really disappointed coming from a 3 series. The car probably is great on its own and if we ever end up with bunch of kids, I may look for a nice 2003 540iT M-Sport wagon in a few years. But in comparison to E46 the car seems huge, heavy, lethargic to directional changes, soft and with uncommunicative steering. It is a very, very different vehicle and even the wonderful engine can't make up for it. I felt like driving a tank (relatively speaking obviously...) E39s look great though.
> But like I said, I would never make this switch unless I really needed the added utility of a wagon, but definitely not for a sedan. 330i is so much more of a driver's car.


I agree wholeheartedly with this. I drove a 540i 6 speed (probably an 02) and decided it was too big and sluggish to really feel comfortable for me. Even the M5, which is blazingly fast and handles phenomonally for a car its size, is a little big for my tastes. The E46 feels much smaller and tighter; the E36 M3 is leagues ahead in terms of perceived size and chuckability.


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

I drove a 540i automatic once and thought it sucked, and it doesn't even really sound like you have a V8 cause it's so quiet. However I drove an E34 530i 5spd and that was really sweet - so I think I'd take an E34 over an E39, although the E39 6 speed sport might be really nice.

Was the RX-8 fun to drive?


----------



## BrettInLJ (Oct 3, 2003)

I used to drive an E36 325i convertible that had all sorts of Dinan mods and now I drive a 540i 6-speed. I test drove E36 M3's and E46 330's before deciding on this car. When driving close to the limits, I was more impressed with the 540i... considering the larger car that it is. Plus, I used to live in Germany so I can appreciate the added torque of the V8 between 110 and 150mph (no top speed limiter in mine), granted I've only got up to 140 in the states.

I was thinking this might be too big of car for me, being in my 20's, but after a couple road trips with 3 other friends and baggage I don't think so. The cornering and handling are great. I wonder if others who don't think so have driven 540's without the sport suspension.


----------



## Wallenrod (Nov 25, 2003)

Dawg90 said:


> I drove a 540i automatic once and thought it sucked, and it doesn't even really sound like you have a V8 cause it's so quiet. However I drove an E34 530i 5spd and that was really sweet - so I think I'd take an E34 over an E39, although the E39 6 speed sport might be really nice.
> 
> Was the RX-8 fun to drive?


It was fun, while at speed. Getting there was painful. It is a really interesting car. Definitely not for my demographics styling/image wise plus it's obviously not a sedan. It seems well built as all Mazdas there and interior looked very good. The car handles very well but does seem underpowered for its weight.
What I was really impressed with, again relatively speaking, was Mazda 3. For someone in this market segment (think Honda Civic) the car is more than it should be. Drives good, looks very good and fit and finish is great.


----------



## rumratt (Feb 22, 2003)

Hehe. Look at the debate I caused. 

I'm not actually interested in a 540i right now. Totally the wrong car for me. I was just somewhat suprised at how cheap they were. 

But then again, I'm not sure if I should be suprised. What was the relative cost of a new M3 and 540i in 1998? I guess they might have been similar.


----------



## Guest (Mar 16, 2004)

rumratt said:


> Hehe. Look at the debate I caused.
> 
> I'm not actually interested in a 540i right now. Totally the wrong car for me. I was just somewhat suprised at how cheap they were.
> 
> But then again, I'm not sure if I should be suprised. What was the relative cost of a new M3 and 540i in 1998? I guess they might have been similar.


 I don't think so.

New M3s in 1998 went for the low to mid $40Ks. My fully loaded '98 (all options except rear-wing, fold-down seats and slushbox) stickered for ~$47K. I think the 540s were in the mid to upper $50Ks (using the price of my dad's '00 528iA as a point of reference). And 740s were, what, almost $70K.

The M3 held it's value comparatively very well.


----------



## Wallenrod (Nov 25, 2003)

rumratt said:


> Hehe. Look at the debate I caused.
> 
> I'm not actually interested in a 540i right now. Totally the wrong car for me. I was just somewhat suprised at how cheap they were.
> 
> But then again, I'm not sure if I should be suprised. What was the relative cost of a new M3 and 540i in 1998? I guess they might have been similar.


I would think that 540i should have a steeper depreciation than M3. I like E36s. I only have 2 complaints: interior ergonomics (minor things- weird, un-bmw dashboard/controls and lack of steering column regulation) and body flex. Coming from E46, body flex is outrageous. Other than that the car is great.


----------



## Motown328 (Jun 4, 2003)

rumratt said:


> For 20K you can get a decent condition 1998 M3.
> 
> But I seems that for the same money, you could also get a 1998 540i. :yikes:
> 
> ...


Same deal out here in the Detroit area. I've seen 7ers from 98-99 that were sub-$25,000...must be no market for used 7ers.


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

Wallenrod said:


> Coming from E46, body flex is outrageous. Other than that the car is great.


Ah good, I thought it was just my E36!! 

The 540i I drove was a non-sport yes, and autos are always less fun. I love the E39 interiors, especially with sport seats!


----------



## SARAFIL (Feb 19, 2003)

rumratt said:


> Obviously they are all very different vehicles, and right now the 740 has no appeal to me (and probably the highest maintenance costs by far). But a 540i for 20K? Hmmmmm.


The 540 will have alot of the expensive repair bills that the 740 would... catalytic converters, radiator, valve cover gaskets, and all the other lovely stuff. If you want a "cheap" 5er to maintain, you need to look at a 528. If you are buying a 540, buy it because you like it, not because it'll be cheaper to maintain than the 740 (because it won't).


----------



## Lscman (Aug 5, 2003)

Costly E39 540i repairs...

It really depends upon whether you do your own repairs or not. A fresh radiator, water pump, coolant recovery reservoir & valve cover gaskets will set you back about $600 in parts every 70K miles. That's about the cost of 4 cheap tires. The V8 is quite a feature to delete in an effort to avoid problems. The 6 cyl 5 series cars in today's terms are sluggish. Many V8 SUV's (Grand Cherokee) & std econoboxes (Neon) will run mid/low-15's & kick sand in their face. The other annoyances you find in a 5 series are shared acrooss the product line....things like $40 thrust arm bushings, $100 pixels and $55 door seals. If you get somebody else to do your dirty work, the cost triples. This may be something to be concerned about.

Catalytic converter failure on the V8 is a problem experienced by folks who run around on 7 cylinders for months. They generally ignore misfire symptoms & check engine lights, refusing to replace valve cover gaskets and the spark plugs become submerged in oil. If you don't run the car for extended interval under a serious misfire condition, you will not damage the cats. You have to be very oblivious to ignore a chronic misfire. It is cheaper to replace the $40 gaskets.

I'm not claiming these problems are to be expected in a $55K vehicle...but they are "manageable", if you want 14.0 sec @ 100+ MPH acceleration.


----------



## The Roadstergal (Sep 7, 2002)

Wallenrod said:


> It was fun, while at speed. Getting there was painful. It is a really interesting car. Definitely not for my demographics styling/image wise plus it's obviously not a sedan. It seems well built as all Mazdas there and interior looked very good. The car handles very well but does seem underpowered for its weight.


Did you drive the auto? If not, I dunno why you'd complain about the get-up-and-go. You do have to wind up the revs, though; stay over 4K and spool it up to 9 for maximum fun. The Miata is similar (although it stops you at 7200).



swchang said:


> Didn't the first 5-series and their predecessors start at around current 3er sizes?


I've seen them parked next to each other, and the E28 looks smaller than an E46. Weight-wise, I think they were just a skosh less.


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

The Roadstergal said:


> I've seen them parked next to each other, and the E28 looks smaller than an E46. Weight-wise, I think they were just a *skosh * less.


WHere does this "skosh" expression come from, Japanese? If so, please stop using it.


----------



## The Roadstergal (Sep 7, 2002)

Dawg90 said:


> WHere does this "skosh" expression come from, Japanese? If so, please stop using it.


 

It's adapted from sukoshi. Why stop?

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_267.html


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

That's what I figured, but I didn't realize the military's been using it for decades, I first heard it recently! 
I lived in Japan and speak the language, but I didn't think I'd ever hear Americans use that word, I find it disturbing. :dunno:


----------



## The Roadstergal (Sep 7, 2002)

Dawg90 said:


> That's what I figured, but I didn't realize the military's been using it for decades, I first heard it recently!
> I lived in Japan and speak the language, but I didn't think I'd ever hear Americans use that word, I find it disturbing. :dunno:


Americans don't have a language. We stole it all from other languages.


----------



## Motown328 (Jun 4, 2003)

Dawg90 said:


> WHere does this "skosh" expression come from, Japanese? If so, please stop using it.


WOW!!! Props to the Michigan boy!!! :thumbup:

Skosh comes from "sukoshi" (sko-she) in Japanese which means "a little bit."

Well caught!!!


----------



## Motown328 (Jun 4, 2003)

Motown328 said:


> WOW!!! Props to the Michigan boy!!! :thumbup:
> 
> Skosh comes from "sukoshi" (sko-she) in Japanese which means "a little bit."
> 
> Well caught!!!


EDIT: ERM....perhaps I should have read a few more posts onward...hahahaha....

Actually, I find it amusing when English speakers use "skosh" and other words like "honcho." They have no clue as to what they are really saying...JAPANESE!!! (albeit a butchered version...)


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

Motown328 said:


> EDIT: ERM....perhaps I should have read a few more posts onward...hahahaha....
> 
> Actually, I find it amusing when English speakers use "skosh" and other words like "honcho." They have no clue as to what they are really saying...JAPANESE!!! (albeit a butchered version...)


I never liked mixing Japanese into English cause when I lived in Japan, some Americans friends would do that a ton (like speak almost half english and half Japanese) and I hated that. So my radar went off when I saw "skosh". 

I thought "honcho" like head honcho came from the native Americans?


----------



## Motown328 (Jun 4, 2003)

Dawg90 said:


> I never liked mixing Japanese into English cause when I lived in Japan, some Americans friends would do that a ton (like speak almost half english and half Japanese) and I hated that. So my radar went off when I saw "skosh".
> 
> I thought "honcho" like head honcho came from the native Americans?


I though it was from honchoo....or "boss" in Japanese? Maybe both? Who knows...hahaha...

Yeah, I think language mixing is a phenom. for all bilinguals, not just Japlish. It's just easier to use the Japanese word a lot of times...


----------



## The Roadstergal (Sep 7, 2002)

Motown328 said:


> Yeah, I think language mixing is a phenom. for all bilinguals, not just Japlish. It's just easier to use the Japanese word a lot of times...


And often, a language will have a word that more succinctly expresses a concept than an existing English word does. You'll find all kinds of words mixed in with English; Japanese, German, French, Yiddish, you name it. It's the way the language evolves.


----------



## Motown328 (Jun 4, 2003)

The Roadstergal said:


> And often, a language will have a word that more succinctly expresses a concept than an existing English word does. You'll find all kinds of words mixed in with English; Japanese, German, French, Yiddish, you name it. It's the way the language evolves.


That's it. The foreign word gets the point across so much easier. That is why ex-pats and people living overseas develop that habit...or if you are bilingual as well. My wife is Japanese and when we speak, I can only imagine what people who overhear us might think...hahaha... :rofl: Dawg...you'd probably grow sick if you hate Japlish...hahaha...


----------



## LeucX3 (Dec 26, 2001)

Nice jack... 


Maybe it's because i grew up in a military area, but i can remember teachers in grade school and just about anyone use the term 'skosh' to mean a little bit. 

Can you move over a skosh?
Just a skosh bit more. 

I knew even then that it wasn't a real word, but 'ain't' wasn't either until it made it's way officially into Webster's.


----------



## MUDBUGGY (Jan 13, 2007)

*1998 540 I Chip?*

I have a buddy that has a 1998 540i and he was wondering if their is a chip or a easy way to gain more power? iwill be straight up i know nothing about BMW'S iam just trying to help out . (MORE POWER IS BETTER:bigpimp: )


----------



## BmW745On19's (Aug 12, 2005)

M3, no doubt. The other two will be bombs.


----------

