# Rumour Control



## brkf (May 26, 2003)

marcio said:


> I never understand why Americans want BMWs when what they actually want is a muscle car. If you want lots of HP, the GTO and the 300C are already available with 350HP. There is no way that the 330 will get even close to that.


Because we also want refinement, handling and luxury. Those things don't exist in american cars. The 300c and GTO are neither refined nor luxurious. As to the handling, I can't comment as I simply haven't had a chance to drive either car (not them I'm rushing out to do so).

Why are people so opposed to powerful, agile, luxurious sport sedans? If BMW made the M3 sedan still, we wouldn't be having this conversation.


----------



## Fzara2000 (Jan 22, 2004)

blueguydotcom said:


> Because we also want refinement, handling and luxury. Those things don't exist in american cars. The 300c and GTO are neither refined nor luxurious. As to the handling, I can't comment as I simply haven't had a chance to drive either car (not them I'm rushing out to do so).
> 
> Why are people so opposed to powerful, agile, luxurious sport sedans? If BMW made the M3 sedan still, we wouldn't be having this conversation.


I know there are these American "muscle" cars out there that boast that much HP, but i'm trying to get people here think a bit differently. I know BMW has these amazing refinements no other car has; in fact, I test drove the Acura TL and it drives like [email protected] compared to my E46. The torque steer is still there, the suspension is just crap, theres no power in the lower rpm's, and the car doesn't have as much class as the BMW's.

But I do realize in the next few years cars like these will become better, their suspensions will change and their drivetrains will change (*cough*Acura*cough*) and BMW will sooner or later not be able to compete with cars like the G35, TL, the new rumored IS300, etc.

If there was a car which drove like my BMW and was a bit more powerful engine-wise, i'd easily go for it. But if BMW puts in 20-30hp more in their current E46 series and rebadges it as a E90 I doubt i'll consider it compared to what the market can offer me at a later time.


----------



## EZ (Feb 27, 2003)

andy_thomas said:


> I suspect a million bhp will have you complaining about its pinko, limp-wristed performance, blueguy .


I rode with two instructors in their cars at my last High Performance Driving School on a race track. One drove an E39 M5 (395 HP) and the other a 15 year old E30 M3. The old car saw only 198 HP in its best days, and the instructor had the heater on at full power in 100F scorcher (to reduce engine overheating).

Both guys were good drivers. But guess who was faster? The old E30 M3 was sitting on the tails of E46 M3s and E39 M5s in all the corners. It felt faster to my butt. :thumbup: to the driver.


----------



## philippek (Jul 31, 2003)

Correction/Update:

The E65 facelift will actually begin with March 2005 production. The facelifted models will be marketed as 2006 models, available mid-May.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.


----------



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

blueguydotcom said:


> Because we also want refinement, handling and luxury. Those things don't exist in american cars. The 300c and GTO are neither refined nor luxurious. As to the handling, I can't comment as I simply haven't had a chance to drive either car (not them I'm rushing out to do so).


How much do you want to pay for this kind of car, though? I am sure Mercedes will sell you a C32 or C55 - cars the size of the 330i but significantly quicker, and significantly more expensive.


----------



## Desertnate (Mar 11, 2002)

andy_thomas said:


> How much do you want to pay for this kind of car, though? I am sure Mercedes will sell you a C32 or C55 - cars the size of the 330i but significantly quicker, and significantly more expensive.


Yeah and have a lovely slushbox to boot :thumbdwn: No thanks...


----------



## Pinecone (Apr 3, 2002)

Funny thing is, people buy hgiher HP, but in many cases, with BMWs the 0-60 and 1/4 mile perofrmance is BETTER than those with higher numbers.

Weight, driveline efficiency and truthfulness all play a part.


----------



## marcio (Apr 29, 2004)

Fzara2000 said:


> I know there are these American "muscle" cars out there that boast that much HP, but i'm trying to get people here think a bit differently.


You want typical German car buyers to think like typical American car buyers. Just slap a bigger, more powerful engine and be done with it. That's what all domestic makers do and that's what the typical American wants. But a BMW would not be a BMW if they did that. It's easy to complain that a 325i would *only* have 210HP. But for a 325i to have 280-300HP, it would require upgraded brakes, suspension, drivetrain, and that costs a bunch of money. In fact, it would require M3-type brakes. BMW already have expensive, high HP cars, and there's no need to make the entire line that way. For example, BMW does have a powerful, agile, luxurious sedan. It's called an M5. Go buy one if that's what you need.


----------



## brkf (May 26, 2003)

andy_thomas said:


> How much do you want to pay for this kind of car, though? I am sure Mercedes will sell you a C32 or C55 - cars the size of the 330i but significantly quicker, and significantly more expensive.


but lacking in refinement, agility, and most importantly (a given when discussing cars) a manual tranny. no manual? no sense buying it.


----------



## brkf (May 26, 2003)

marcio said:


> For example, BMW does have a powerful, agile, luxurious sedan. It's called an M5. Go buy one if that's what you need.


And it's a huge car. The current 3 is portly. The 5 is beastly in proportions.

Again, why not an M3 sedan? It's not asking that much.


----------



## marcio (Apr 29, 2004)

blueguydotcom said:


> And it's a huge car. The current 3 is portly. The 5 is beastly in proportions.
> 
> Again, why not an M3 sedan? It's not asking that much.


I don't have anything against a M3 sedan. In fact, I prefer a M3 sedan instead of a coupe as well. BMW probably thought it would not sell well. They might be right given the preference for coupes by the performance crowd even when previous M3 sedans handle better than the coupes.


----------



## palooka666 (Apr 23, 2002)

ff said:


> woo-hoo!!! iDrive in the 3 series!!! :fruit: Is anyone else as excited as I am?


atleast it's still _optional_... god help us when it's a standard "feature"


----------



## Ty Vil (Dec 19, 2002)

because an m3 is a sports car and a sedan m3 definatly does not look sporty.


----------



## 1seriesfanatic (Jul 5, 2004)

BMW has already released information on the next generation Valvetronic engines and guess what, a 2.5L I6 and a 3.0 I6 will be in the line-up with 325 and 330 models available. Since the original post got even this basic info wrong I'd be hard pressed to believe anything else said...


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

Ty Vil said:


> because an m3 is a sports car and a sedan m3 definatly does not look sporty.


No M3 has ever been a sports car. Each and every one of them has been a sport sedan.


----------



## bren (Jul 1, 2002)

Ty Vil said:


> ...a sedan m3 definatly does not look sporty.


I would disagree. You don't think this looks "sporty" ?


----------



## brkf (May 26, 2003)

Ty Vil said:


> because an m3 is a sports car and a sedan m3 definatly does not look sporty.


I disagree but to each his own. I won't own a coupe - too impractical.


----------



## philippek (Jul 31, 2003)

philippek said:


> Ok guys, I just finished speaking with my regional rep and I finally got to ask him a bunch of questions which have fermenting within me for some time. Thought I'd post my findings here and try to start some dialogue...and try to separate the chaff from the wheat. Much of this is probably reposted from somewhere, so forgive the repetitiveness. Please note this is regarding North America only, doubt much of this will apply to Europe.
> 
> 1) E46 sedan production continues through February '05 production, as 2005 models.
> 
> ...


Just thought I'd pat myself on the back for being Nostradumus.


----------



## Mr. The Edge (Dec 19, 2001)

philippek said:


> Just thought I'd pat myself on the back for being Nostradumus.


I thought it was your regional rep 

this one should be noted in light of the accuracy of the other stuff



> a) E46 M3 will continue production with coupes and cabrios. It will retain the S54. E90 M3 planned for 2008. No M3 planned for 2007 model year.


----------



## whitewagon (Mar 8, 2004)

philippek said:


> Ok guys, I just finished speaking with my regional rep and I finally got to ask him a bunch of questions which have fermenting within me for some time. Thought I'd post my findings here and try to start some dialogue...and try to separate the chaff from the wheat. Much of this is probably reposted from somewhere, so forgive the repetitiveness. Please note this is regarding North America only, doubt much of this will apply to Europe.QUOTE]
> 
> Will the new valvetronic engine from the 330is/530is get slapped in the Z4 3.0?


----------



## 328Gunn (Jan 14, 2005)

Are there any perspective dates on the release of the 1 series coupe(2 series)? I heard there's going to be an M version of this car.


----------



## Rob325_in_AZ (Oct 22, 2004)

philippek said:


> 3) E90 sedans to be available in two models: 330i and 330is (or some other nomenclature). Both with the new Valvetronic engine, magnesium block, etc. 330i will be entry level at around 200-215hp. 330is will offer around 250 hp.


While you're rumour-busting, please clarify this issue. Do we get :

a) two 3.0L models, one more powerful for the 330 and the less powerful for the 325?

or

b) a 2.5L for the 325 and a 3.0L for the 330?

I have seen both of these speculated on. :dunno:


----------



## philippek (Jul 31, 2003)

whitewagon said:


> philippek said:
> 
> 
> > Ok guys, I just finished speaking with my regional rep and I finally got to ask him a bunch of questions which have fermenting within me for some time. Thought I'd post my findings here and try to start some dialogue...and try to separate the chaff from the wheat. Much of this is probably reposted from somewhere, so forgive the repetitiveness. Please note this is regarding North America only, doubt much of this will apply to Europe.QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## philippek (Jul 31, 2003)

Rob325_in_AZ said:


> While you're rumour-busting, please clarify this issue. Do we get :
> 
> a) two 3.0L models, one more powerful for the 330 and the less powerful for the 325?
> 
> ...


From the ordering guide it appears that the 325 and 330 nameplates stay, although both will be powered by motors displacing 3 liters.


----------



## SARAFIL (Feb 19, 2003)

philippek said:


> From the ordering guide it appears that the 325 and 330 nameplates stay, although both will be powered by motors displacing 3 liters.


Yep, looks like your Rep was right on (of course-- the reps know everything, even if they don't tell us  ), but BMW realized how stupid it was to have a 330i and 330is, when the 325i model name has such a long history with BMW. It makes sense to call them a 325 and 330 (even if they are both 3.0L), because it makes it seem that the difference is bigger than it really is, and they can continue to differentiate the models by a difference in base price of several thousand dollars.


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

Rob325_in_AZ said:


> While you're rumour-busting, please clarify this issue. Do we get :
> 
> a) two 3.0L models, one more powerful for the 330 and the less powerful for the 325?
> 
> ...


b.


----------



## SARAFIL (Feb 19, 2003)

Alex Baumann said:


> b.


Alex--

BMWNA has released press data on the 525xi/530xi indicating that both will be powered by new Valvetronic 3.0L engine, and the new ordering guides for the E90 show the same thing. In one article, BMWNA even went as far as to say that they realize that this goes against their normal naming strategy, which leads me to believe that it wasn't just a typo that the 325 and 525 will use a 3.0L.

I don't know what to believe!


----------



## Rob325_in_AZ (Oct 22, 2004)

Alex Baumann said:


> b.


Alright now, who's right?


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

SARAFIL said:


> Alex--
> 
> BMWNA has released press data on the 525xi/530xi indicating that both will be powered by new Valvetronic 3.0L engine, and the new ordering guides for the E90 show the same thing. In one article, BMWNA even went as far as to say that they realize that this goes against their normal naming strategy, which leads me to believe that it wasn't just a typo that the 325 and 525 will use a 3.0L.
> 
> I don't know what to believe!


The E90 325i is getting a 2.5 Liter Valvetronic engine (218 DIN HP, 250 Nm)
The E90 330i is getting a 3.0 Liter Valvetronic engine (258 DIN HP, 300 Nm)



EDIT : OK, if they are planning something different for the US market, that I don't know.


----------



## SARAFIL (Feb 19, 2003)

Alex Baumann said:


> The E90 325i is getting a 2.5 Liter Valvetronic engine (218 DIN HP, 250 Nm)
> The E90 330i is getting a 3.0 Liter Valvetronic engine (258 DIN HP, 300 Nm)
> 
> 
> ...


 :dunno:


----------



## Mr. The Edge (Dec 19, 2001)

I think Alex is wrong on this one

:eeps: :eeps: :eeps:


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

Heh, I don't know if it's the right thing to do, put the same engine in the cars, badge them differently.

Would it be a sin to take the badge of a 325i off and put a 330i ? :dunno:

Oh, starting from April, we're going to have a lot of fun on the 'Fest


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

atyclb said:


> I think Alex is wrong on this one
> 
> :eeps: :eeps: :eeps:


See my edit, but I'm 100% sure what the german and european market will be getting.


----------



## philippek (Jul 31, 2003)

atyclb said:


> I think Alex is wrong on this one
> 
> :eeps: :eeps: :eeps:


Does this mean the rapture is upon us?


----------



## SARAFIL (Feb 19, 2003)

atyclb said:


> I think Alex is wrong on this one
> 
> :eeps: :eeps: :eeps:


I'll wait and see before I call Alex wrong!


----------



## Technic (Jun 24, 2002)

That torque rating of the 3.0 Valvetronic seem more like a 2.5 liter engine than a 3.0...


----------



## SARAFIL (Feb 19, 2003)

Technic said:


> That torque rating of the 3.0 Valvetronic seem more like a 2.5 liter engine than a 3.0...


I find it hard to believe that BMWNA could make a mistake that many times regarding the displacement of the engine, and the statement that they made acknowledging that the model designation is incorrect due to the new engine size makes it seem like it really will be a 3.0L.

However, given Alex's sources and the fact that the European model will have a 2.5L, and the fact that the torque figure is low for a 3.0L, I can't say that I'm 100% sure.


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

SARAFIL said:


> I find it hard to believe that BMWNA could make a mistake that many times regarding the displacement of the engine, and the statement that they made acknowledging that the model designation is incorrect due to the new engine size makes it seem like it really will be a 3.0L.
> 
> However, given Alex's sources and the fact that the European model will have a 2.5L, and the fact that the torque figure is low for a 3.0L, I can't say that I'm 100% sure.


Well, the figures in the sheet you have posted are matching the numbers I posted. The only difference is the displacement. Hmm...


----------



## philippek (Jul 31, 2003)

In the prelim Ordering Guide we got today, it mentions a "3 step air intake manifold" which is standard on the 330, not available on the 325. Given that displacement, bore and stroke are identical, could that be responsible for the power difference?

Did BMWNA "choke" the 325i with a restrictive manifold to make their entry-level car?


----------



## SARAFIL (Feb 19, 2003)

philippek said:


> In the prelim Ordering Guide we got today, it mentions a "3 step air intake manifold" which is standard on the 330, not available on the 325. Given that displacement, bore and stroke are identical, could that be responsible for the power difference?
> 
> Did BMWNA "choke" the 325i with a restrictive manifold to make their entry-level car?


That begs the question: If the 325i will really have a "de-tuned" 3.0L, what will it take to turn up the heat a little on that engine? I remember the 323i vs. 328i debates from the E46 launch, and people claiming that the 323i could be tuned to offer nearly all the performance of the 328i for substantial savings. I wonder if we'll see a similar scenario with the new 325i.


----------



## FenPhen (Jan 13, 2004)

Andm99 said:


> Isn't the M54 the same engine in both the 325 and 330 with slightly more bored out cyclinders?


The M54-B25, in addition to having a shorter stroke than the -B30, carries over a few more components from the older M52TU engine.
http://www.e46fanatics.com/faq/m54engine.html


----------



## johnf (Sep 16, 2003)

Alex Baumann said:


> Well, the figures in the sheet you have posted are matching the numbers I posted. The only difference is the displacement. Hmm...


My German E90 sales flyer lists:the EU 325i at 2497 cc and 1490 kg (3285 lb)

the EU 330i at 2996 cc and 1525 kg (3362 lb)​The first weight exactly matches the value SAFARI posted. The second is 55 lbs short. Could the U.S. be getting the same engines but a 330i with extra standard equipment adding to its weight?


----------



## johnf (Sep 16, 2003)

Andm99 said:


> ... do you know much about how good these inline sixes will be with valvetronic? Will they still sound mean and have some punch?


_Mot_ magazine claims the new valvetronic technic is good to 7000 rpm. That is promising!


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

johnf said:


> My German E90 sales flyer lists:the EU 325i at 2497 cc and 1490 kg (3285 lb)
> 
> the EU 330i at 2996 cc and 1525 kg (3362 lb)​The first weight exactly matches the value SARAFIL posted. The second is 55 lbs short. Could the U.S. be getting the same engines but a 330i with extra standard equipment adding to its weight?


That looks like it, since US spec cars are getting more standard equipment.


----------



## tierfreund (Nov 12, 2004)

All might or might not be true, but in my experience the dealer is the WORST possible source of information on upcoming models. Don know whether they´re careless or BSing for business reasons, but I usually find I know more about whats coming than any dealer...


----------



## Mr. The Edge (Dec 19, 2001)

Alex Baumann said:


> That looks like it, since US spec cars are getting more standard equipment.


moonroof is good for at least 40 pounds


----------



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

SARAFIL said:


> It is normal BMW practice to launch the M-model 2-3 years following the launch of the core model-- the E36 M3 came out in '95, the E36 in '92; the E39 M5 in '00, the E39 in '97, the E46 M3 in '01, the E46 in '99.
> 
> This is nothing new.


As it happens the E36 appeared at the very end of 1990, and the E36 M3 appeared at the tail end of 1992. I suspect it would have been sooner but for (a) problems with very early E36s' general fitness for purpose, and (b) concerns over the 330CSi's suitability as a true replacement for the E30 M3. IIRC the car's lack of racing pedigree eventually enabled BMW to shift the focus of this car away from that of the E30 M3.

IIRC there was a small delay attributable the development and introduction of the E36 M3 peculiar to North America (though I noted Canada was sent a small batch of 286 bhp M3s the previous year). Nowadays the US gets the car as soon as it is available.

I don't doubt that the demand for the next generation M3 will be omnipresent and considerable .


----------



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

johnf said:


> _Mot_ magazine claims the new valvetronic technic is good to 7000 rpm. That is promising!


I found this interesting too, since 1st generation engines run out of puff in a relatively un-BMW-like manner. I haven't seen many detail technical drawings, but the fat spring that holds the Valvetronic cams in place - the ones which allow valve lift to vary - was the limitation in the first engines. Since the cams are having to work against this spring when they open and close the valve, the valve springs were made as weak as possible to compensate (and this limits peak rpm). Perhaps BMW has found a way to do away with this spring altogether, since these new engines rev even higher - and in doing so, producing more power - than their non-Valvetronic predecessors.


----------



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

Andm99 said:


> Wouldn't the N52 also be the name for the 2.5 liter. I think they discriminate between the engines with the actual displacement. Isn't the M54 the same engine in both the 325 and 330 with slightly more bored out cyclinders? Also, Alex, do you know much about how good these inline sixes will be with valvetronic? Will they still sound mean and have some punch?


One more 

I'm not Alex, but there are a few reviews of the 630i in the European press. It's quite a bit lighter than the 645Ci on account of that featherweight engine, and apparently has enough grunt that it doesn't feel underpowered, particularly if you are generous with the revs (shorter gearing than the V8). Allegedly the engine, and its noise pattern, is smoother than the outgoing 330i, possibly (or partly) because of the less undersquare design (bore/stroke 85/88 mm vs 84/90 mm). Like the outgoing 3.0, it will probably have different noise characteristics depending on the car it goes into.

How the economy stacks up remains to be seen...


----------



## jetstream23 (Mar 9, 2004)

tierfreund said:


> All might or might not be true,....


Additionally, it may or may not rain tomorrow....I guarantee it!

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.


----------



## tierfreund (Nov 12, 2004)

jetstream23 said:


> Additionally, it may or may not rain tomorrow....I guarantee it!
> 
> Sorry, I just couldn't resist.


 :rofl:

You caught me on the bs parade...


----------

