# Why choose an e39 over e46?



## November Rain (Sep 9, 2004)

e46 handles better, is cheaper, has almost as much room.


----------



## Mathew (Feb 8, 2002)

Bigger engines.


----------



## BlackChrome (Nov 16, 2003)

Because everyone has a e46?


----------



## Patrick (Dec 23, 2001)

I like the way that it drives compared to the E46.

It feels bigger, heavier and I like the seats better than the E46.


.


----------



## GJR (Jan 6, 2003)

Interior quality is much better (may not be noticeable at first, but take a look and feel around and you'll see). And to me it feels more solid and stable on the road. I've owned two E46s and I wouldn't go back after owning my E39.


----------



## markseven (Apr 30, 2004)

GJR said:


> Interior quality is much better (may not be noticeable at first, but take a look and feel around and you'll see). And to me it feels more solid and stable on the road. I've owned two E46s and I wouldn't go back after owning my E39.


GJR,

I was considering a E46 for a while, decided to stay with the Touring:thumbup:

-Mark


----------



## PropellerHead (Jan 3, 2002)

November Rain said:


> e46 handles better, is cheaper, has almost as much room.


Do both! 

I can say that our E46 330 sedan is a nice city car but the E39 540 takes it hands down as a cruiser. Of course, things changed a bit recently and we've sort of gained some room with the E53- Now my daily driver.


----------



## bmw325 (Dec 19, 2001)

I'd want an e39 over an e46 for:
-much better seats
-better interior quality (although I think the e46 inteiror has better ergonomics)
-more substantial, higher quality feel (particularly the doors heft and thunk). I also like some of the higher quality details on the body like the way the fenders, hood and A pillar meet up, and hte CELIS tail lights on the facelifted e39s.
-no reported cases of rear subframe tear-outs
-less road/wind noise
-smoother ride

Basically, the e39 makes a much better long-distance cruiser. But, you're right, its not really worth it to buy it just for interior room (there's really not much more of it). And, in terms of actual quality, its probably about the same since it shares many componetns with the e46. The main differences (in terms of quality) are that the e39 seesm to have more cooling system problems and the e46 has the rear floor tear outs (although there are far fewer of these). They both have premature suspension bushing wear, window reg failures, random electronic sensor problems, etc. 

I want an e39 mostly for its "cruisability". My e46 gets tiresome after about 2 hours on the highway. I once rented an e39 520 in Europe and drove it for about 6 hours w/ 1 break-- and no fatigue. But, if I can find a way to put e39 seats in my e46, that may go a long way toward addressing this issue (and possibly switching to 16" wheels). I prefer the (original) e46 looks, tossability and size.

Despite this, its still hard for me to justify the price jump (even now that they're used) between a comparable e46 and 39.


----------



## PropellerHead (Jan 3, 2002)

robg said:


> I want an e39 mostly for its "cruisability". My e46 gets tiresome after about 2 hours on the highway. I once rented an e39 520 in Europe and drove it for about 6 hours w/ 1 break-- and no fatigue.


My record is 14 hours in the E39. Back from Bimmerfest '04. We did something like 1100 miles in 14 hours :eeps: on the second day back. Fatigue? Oh h#ll yeah... Would I do it again? Ohhhh yeah. :angel:


----------



## SehrSchnell (Jan 3, 2005)

Not to sound snobish, but it's my belief the 5 series also has a tad more prestige to it. Oh, and i'm also 6'05" so the more room the better. :thumbup:


----------



## alpinewhite325i (Jan 20, 2002)

PropellerHead said:


> My record is 14 hours in the E39. Back from Bimmerfest '04. We did something like 1100 miles in 14 hours :eeps: on the second day back. Fatigue? Oh h#ll yeah... Would I do it again? Ohhhh yeah. :angel:


I did almost 1100 miles in 14 hours in our Sequioa from Port Canaveral Fl to Pittsburgh.

The Toyota's seats are much more comfy than the bimmers.

 :yikes: :eeps: :angel:


----------



## bmw325 (Dec 19, 2001)

alpinewhite325i said:


> I did almost 1100 miles in 14 hours in our Sequioa from Port Canaveral Fl to Pittsburgh.
> 
> The Toyota's seats are much more comfy than the bimmers.
> 
> :yikes: :eeps: :angel:


Not sure if that applies to all Toyotas (I've been in Camrys and Corollas with quite bad seats), but it seems to apply to atleast some Toyota trucks. I once drove a Toyota Landcruister (I think it was a 92 model) across the country. Those were the best seats I've ever sat in-- I could literally sit in them all day without discomfort. I've read that sitting in a van or truck can often more comfortable than a car because you are more upright and yoiur legs are at less of an angle.


----------



## dagoo98 (Apr 23, 2004)

I agree, my father has a 99 landcruiser and the seats are very comfortable.


----------



## liuk3 (May 3, 2004)

November Rain said:


> e46 handles better, is cheaper, has almost as much room.


if u have to ask, get an e46...


----------



## waapples (Jan 5, 2004)

e39 is a bigger sedan, i meant the difference between Honda Civic VS. Accord according to friend of mine "BlackChrome"

i truly agree with his description :thumbup:


----------



## vexed (Dec 22, 2001)

I went from a E46 to an E39. For me the increased room was very important since I have a car seat in the back, tested it in a E46 sedan and there is a noticeable difference. The seats are much better, the car does feel more solid and yes it is larger but it can still be flung around. If you are single and do not carry passengers very often an E46 may be more fun, it is smaller also. Another factor for me was I thought the late E39s look great.


----------



## Jon Shafer (Dec 15, 2001)

PropellerHead said:


> My record is 14 hours in the E39. Back from Bimmerfest '04. We did something like 1100 miles in 14 hours on the second day back. Fatigue? Oh h#ll yeah... Would I do it again? Ohhhh yeah.


Better start making plans...


----------



## Patrick (Dec 23, 2001)

vexed said:


> Another factor for me was I thought the late E39s look great.


I wholeheartedly agree.

I have been a fan of the E39 Touring since I had my first E46 (2000). However, my next E39 will be sedan. :eeps:

.


----------



## johnlew (Dec 25, 2001)

Patrick 520iAT said:


> I like the way that it drives compared to the E46.
> 
> It feels bigger, heavier and I like the seats better than the E46.
> 
> .


Plus, my 540 has grunt that the E46 can't touch.


----------



## Patrick (Dec 23, 2001)

robg said:


> Despite this, its still hard for me to justify the price jump (even now that they're used) between a comparable e46 and 39.


RobG! You have been on the fence about this for (what seems like) more than a year ... and you mention the same reasons for liking the E39 repeatedly ... time to make a move!

:bigpimp:

.


----------



## PropellerHead (Jan 3, 2002)

johnlew said:


> I suppose, but the stock M3 I drove just didn't have the same grunt and growl that comes with the eight and weight.


I was thinking the same thing about the M3 I drove as it compared to the V8. Of course- it doesn't keep me from pineing for the 'vert. :eeps: :bigpimp:


----------



## BahnBaum (Feb 25, 2004)

johnlew said:


> I suppose, but the stock M3 I drove just didn't have the same grunt and growl that comes with the eight and weight. Personal preference. I like my 330, but always get a kick out of the grunt in the 540. Both are nice, apples and oranges.


I agree that the sound of my M3 doesn't compare to your 8. But grunt wise, is there a 0-Whatever that your 540 would lead an M3 in? :dunno:

Alex


----------



## PropellerHead (Jan 3, 2002)

BahnBaum said:


> I agree that the sound of my M3 doesn't compare to your 8. But grunt wise, is there a 0-Whatever that your 540 would lead an M3 in? :dunno:
> 
> Alex


0-30?


----------



## BahnBaum (Feb 25, 2004)

PropellerHead said:


> 0-30?


That's what I'm wondering. From a dead stop, at what speeds would a 540 be ahead of an M3.

Alex


----------



## PropellerHead (Jan 3, 2002)

BahnBaum said:


> That's what I'm wondering. From a dead stop, at what speeds would a 540 be ahead of an M3.
> 
> Alex


 :dunno: That would depend on the 540.. and the M3.. and a host of other things. Armchair racing is no fun.

I guess the grunt that *I'm* talking about is that low end tourqe from the V8. The M3 I drove was quick enough, but it- like the I6 in the 330- needed a few RPM's to really get going. Dont get me wrong, the M3 nearly got there before it actually left, but it just wasn't the same.

I wonder if this helps.. Like when I'm playing "Super Baby" with Emmie- When I swoop her up in a circlular motion from the floor to full arms length above my head, she just giggles and laughs her head off. When I take her from my chest to the same height, she laughs and all, but it's just not the same to her- even if she did get there more quickly.

The really odd thing: She's never ridden in the 540.


----------



## Lscman (Aug 5, 2003)

Andy said:


> I own a 2000 528i.
> 
> The 540i 6 speeds are great cars!! However, I think a 330i ZHP could take a 540i on the track&#8230; especially, if I was driving.  When it comes to cornering and braking, I just think the 540i is at too much of a weight disadvantage. No disrespect to the 540i, I love those cars, I just think the lighter and nimbler E46 is better suited for the track.


The 540i/6 is by no means the ultimate track weapon. However with equal drivers (stock versus stock) on the street or on a "high speed" track, the 540i/6 will surely outrun the 330i/6. My 540i/6 has seen lots of track miles...and lots of 3 series.

It will depend upon the track design as to which car excels. A 540i/6 is capable of hanging with an E36 M3 for a half dozen laps on most larger tracks like Watkins Glen or Pocono. Since tracks come in all sizes, few track junkies run 540i cars, so such real-life examples are rare. Obviously an E46 330i/6spd will fade in this high speed venue against the E36 M3/5spd and E39 540i/6spd. The 330i will not take a 540i/6 unless the track is quite twisty (technical) and slow, such that braking and/or tossability become major factors. Summit Point or Mid Ohio would benefit the 330i. It would not be a kill, though...as the 330i would get spanked by the V8 for a few laps until the 5er tires and brakes degraded. After that, the 330i would slowly gain ground in the twisties and braking zones.

By the way, sometimes high speed stability is preferred to tossability. This is why the heavier, longer wheelbase Ferrari is sometimes preferred to Porsche. The 5er also offers four cavernous wheelwells that will swallow 275 tires and 9.5" wide wheels without fender mods. In the E46, you must upgrade to the super-costly M3 to get this feature. The used 540i cars are much more affordable compared to E46 M3. I agree that a 330i/6 will outhandle a 540i/6 in a low speed autocross. The weight & longer wheelbase that limits the 540i compared to a 3 series seldom become a problem in impromptu street races. The extra 400 lbs & size do become a factor when you're zigzagging around cones in a parking lot at 40 MPH in 1st gear (against Hondas) or standing on the brakes under severe track duty for 15+ minutes. Neither car is optimal for this game. A set of HT-10 front pads will more than cover the brake deficit.

I can say without hesitation that I've never been passed on-track by a 330 car. No doubt it will happen someday...on a tighter track. I have been passed by stockish M3's and MZ3's in twisty sections (especially later in the session when my brakes are hot). I accept/expect that. I've been passed by tons of 3 series, but about 95% of them have suspension work and aftermarket spring rates higher than the one's found my 3700lb car. These modified cars ride like a Ford Focus or Kia, so comfort is not maintained. It's really tough to find a stock 3 series on a track that doesn't have Ground Control, stiff springs and other go-fast mods. The 3 series definitely consumes less tire and brake under such duty, plus they are easier to maintain, so track junkies understandably prefer them.

Nimble and tossable are very relative terms. For example, the 5 series is tossable compared to some ponycars...while a 330i will feel cumbersome compared to a Subari.



BahnBaum said:


> That's what I'm wondering. From a dead stop, at what speeds would a 540 be ahead of an M3.
> 
> Alex


In acceleration contests, a modestly-optioned E36 M3/5spd and E39 540i/6spd cars are virtual equals under 100 MPH. Both run around 14 flat at 101 to 102 MPH. This assumes you can find an M3 without the 110lb power moonroof. The 330i/6 is about 3/10ths slower and the E46 M3 is faster under ALL conditions. Some claim the 540i will hang with E46 M3 over 120 MPH, but I doubt that.

The M3 driver needs to work harder to achieve optimal numbers because the powerband and power delivery is not as flexible. Most novices will have better luck turning "best" numbers with the V8 because the 6spd is better and powerband is flatter, so it does not need to be shifted at precise points.


----------



## alpinewhite325i (Jan 20, 2002)

gojira-san said:


> I agree with that
> 
> The E39/2 gives me a more room, and with the 6cyl gets decent mpg, so it makes a good commuting car. While not as quick as the 540s, it has plenty of grunt - mash the loud pedal and it moves away from most cars on the road. I like my E46 for the more back-road driving and for long trips where I don't need to haul a lot of stuff (I like the E46 sport seats; unfortunately my Touring has the sport package but with standard seats.)
> 
> ...


Not sure if the Tundra has the same seats; I would think it would.

YMMV!!


----------



## Greco (Feb 16, 2003)

November Rain said:


> e46 handles better, is cheaper, has almost as much room.


Almost as much room.. who are you kidding. Interior is alot bigger especially the back seat and leg room. Don't get me started on the trunk. I fit 3 large golf bags plus 2 pull carts in my trunk. My neighbour couldn't even get 1 bag in his trunk.


----------

