By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
What's so sporty about a jacked up, heavy AWD that comes with a cosmetics only sports package?!? If you are looking for sports on non-snowy roads, get the RWD. If you are looking for sports on snow, the Quattro is a much sportier system. Frankly, of all the popular AWD systems on sports sedans, the BMW's is one of the worst. I will take an A4 Quattro with sport package and WRX over an Xi any day!!
p.s. The Quattro is the only AWD that I know of that transfer power from side to side as well.
Traditionally speaking RWD has being associated with a sportier ride. In a road course, RWD provides the following benefits:
1. Weight distribution shift towards the rear during acceleration which optimizes traction.
2. Separates traction forces during cornering (steer with the front, accelerate with the rears)
However, suspension setup and traction control wizardry can compensate for it.
I was watching the other night a race from the European Touring Car Championship, and the FWD Volvos were kicking butt.
Here in the USA, nobody can beat those FWD Acuras in touring coupe competition.
FWD cars maximizes traction on slippery surfaces by keeping the weight on top of the front axle, providing an advantage on those circumstances.
FWD cars tend also to understeer, which is safer and will keep you out of trouble, in comparison to RWD, which will tend to oversteer and spin you around if you don't correct it soon enough (a non natural reflex for people whom have not experience it before, that's why I strongly believe everybody should autocross at least once in their life
FWD is also more efficient and returns better mpg
I might adventure to say, that on a very twisty road, the well tuned Acura type-S will win over dinosaurs such as Pontiac Firebirds or a Mustang with its rear solid axle.
However, once you let your tail drift out and correct through a corner on a RWD car (without traction control), the smile on your face will be difficult to remove for months
However, if you let it slide too much, or not at all, then you are loosing time.
Fortunately, I had put the snows on last week for a trip up north. My 325i w/SP equipped with Dunlop Winter Sports handled the slippery stuff just fine w/o AWD.
Acceleration was good. The traction control kicked in frequently making it difficult to scoot the back end around. I turned off the TC for a bit to have a little fun, but thought I best leave it on around others.
All in all, I'm pleased with the with the performance in the snow. I may not have the best "snow mobile" on the road, but I'm certain I'm better off than 90% of the other vehicles out there. Based on my initial (and other car) experiences, this will be a great car for the winter.
-murray
p.s. Are there any theories out there why my car is kicking out warm air after only two blocks? This seems like a lot shorter time than other cars I've driven.
don't read too much into FWD racecars. the touring cars are only FWD in most series and where RWD models exist they have a significant weight penalty. heads-up, FWD has no chance.
and this--
quote: I might adventure to say, that on a very twisty road, the well tuned Acura type-S will win over dinosaurs such as Pontiac Firebirds or a Mustang with its rear solid axle.
ultimately the driver is going to matter far more than the car. I bet div2 could waste me on most curvy roads in his 318 and me in my M3. but given equivalent drivers, I'd easily put money on the RWD v8 dinosaur. easily.
have you ever driven one in anger? the 3-link rear suspension in the last gen f-body in particular worked well and there's something to be said for huge tires.
-Colin
If somebody comes with a RWD design that emulates the packaging and lightweight of the RWD, then it will have to face the efficiency lost from transferring the energy from the front engine all....the....way....to....the....rear....wheels.
I'll give you some references as soon as possible
Efficiency lost? It's a drive shaft. You turn one end and the other end turns the same number of times with the same torque. Where is the efficiency lost?
FWD, OTOH, has to pass through a more complex universal joint that losses efficiency when the wheels are turned.
Inline 6 cylinder engines are naturally balanced as opposed to V6's that require extra weight (ie less efficient) to run smoothly. Try putting a I6 in your small, lightweight FWD.
The drive shaft on a RWD car will sap a little HP, but I don't think there is a big difference either way.
-murray
According to the European Touring Car Championship Technical regulations, the minimum weight of the car, including the driver and full equipment, is:
1140 Kg for a FWD car
1170 KG for a RWD car
http://www.eurostc.com/regulations/S2000_Technical_Regulations_EN.pdf
Yes, the RWD cars weight 30 kilos more than the FWD car!.
I wonder if this difference (2.5%) in weight is significant to the point of handing the victories to the FWD cars w/o BMW putting a scream in the sky!
We all agree that the MOTHER of all sporty configurations is mid-engine, RWD
Brave, do you empty your gas tank before an autocross? 10 gallons of fuel weight approximately 40 KG!!! (I confess on not filling the car with gas in anticipation of an autocross weekend
The big gain is packaging. More room for passengers and cargo. When you're building an econobox that's pretty important.
-Colin
Why are the Insight and Prius FWD?
The only reason for the existence of this cars is better fuel economy
there is no pretense of performance in vehicles like that, so they want to make things as inexpensively as possible and maximize cabin and trunk space.
-Colin
Cannot wait for BMW's answer to the G35 when my lease expires in 2005
Front wheel drives really only lose power by friction on the front differential as well, but there's no drive shaft. Less mass to move, less inertia, more efficiency. And the progress of FWD setups have been spectacular these last years, putting huge amounts of power to the ground isn't really as challenging as one might think. Especially thanks to suspension tuning, as mg330ci indicated. Look at the Alfa 147 GTA (250hp, 221 lbft) and Ford Focus RS (210hp, 228 lbft), for example.
p.s. The driver matters more than the car in all cases - not just racing.
http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16662
1. What are your opinions on the Sport package option? Value of seats, 3-spoke wheel, "sport" wheels, and run flat tires...is it worth it?
2. Is the steel gray metallic finish difficult to keep "clean"? I suspect I may generate some comments on color preferences...
Also, here it is incompatible with the "x" series.
Steel gray??? I drive a Jet Black car and it stays filthy. I wash my car every week. Any more times and it would become a religion. Steel gray should look relatively clean. I think silver hides dirt the best.
Since you're getting the 330Xi I assume you live in inclement weather. I've said it before and I'll say it again, LOVE the heated seats! If you weren't thinking of it before definitely give it consideration.
I noticed a big difference in handling with the narrower winter tires. I know it's been said before, but the tires do make a big difference in handling. There's a lot more body roll and the car gets a little "jiggly" at times. I have some second thoughts if I should have gotten 225/45-17 winter tires for better handling. But the narrower tires will help me better navigate through the inclement weather. I guess I can handle that for 3 months.
The two things I noticed right away were that the car *feels* heavier (sluggish?) and, on the positive side, it is much less likely to tramline.
I would figure the tramlining change would be due to the slightly narrower rear tires and/or the different tread pattern/compound of the winter tires. A coworker told me that he had heard that staggered tire sizes cause a car to tramline more than a car that uses the wider size tires on both ends. Anyone else ever hear anything like that?
One more thing for those of you with the style 44 wheels (325 SP). If you ever need to take them off the car, be warned that they are VERY front heavy. I learned this the hard way when two of my four new wheels toppled over... and my winter tires don't have rim protectors. :-(
We have another 3-6" of snow forecast for tomorrow afternoon, so hopefully I'll make it home fine and my wife won't have to tow me up the hill with her Quattro
p.s. Some deal you got on those 44's!! The guy that sold them to you probably spent 3 grand on flashy 18" wheels. Good for you!
I'm really surprised you aren't noticing a big difference with the Sumi's when the weather gets cold. The Kumho's (and Conti's before them) performance degraded considerably when the temps dropped. When I left for hunting monday morning the temps were around 10-12 degrees. I think I made better time on the backroads with the Dunlops than I could've with the Kumho's. Mainly because of the tendancy the Kumho's were getting to spin (and cause DSC to kick in) when applying throttle coming out of a corner. With the Dunlops, on the other hand, I can be a little more aggressive without the rears breaking traction.
1. Some very aggressive drivers, told me that they like to give 110% during the first run, since the stakes are lower, and they will have more chances to compensate if they hit a cone, becoming more conservative as the pressure builds up at the end of the day.
2. Lower temps = Higher HP
Also I noticed that even with the same tire sizes, the manual and sticker specifies higher pressures for the rear tires. I now have the same size winter tires for front and rear. I thought that made sense for my 330i SP with different tire sizes front and rear, but should they be different for same size tires ?
kominsky - I hope I don't regret getting the Dunlop M2's in 205/50-17. The handling/ride feels mushier and softer. Maybe as brave1heart suggests they may handle better after getting broken in.
I hope everyone had an enjoyable turkey day holiday. I just wanted to report that I'm enjoying my BMW experience with ownership, but I have one problem. It seems that I'm driving the 1998 M3 more than the 2002 325ci? I'm having a hard time deciding which car to take in the morning now haha( I know, tough life).
I love the M3. Don't get me wrong, the E46 3 series cars are great, but the M3 just takes the whole concept to the next level. I can understand why this car was deemed the best handling car under $50K by Car and Driver a few years back. It's not harsh, sharp but forgiving.
My 325ci is more of a looker over the M3. It's popular with people who are more into the "looks" of a vehicle.
IMHO, if a person is looking for a great BMW 3 series and not concerned with having a E 46 body, I would look for a late model,low miles,CPO,well kept M3 over a 330.
For the price of the current 330 vs the M3 of a few years ago, it would be nice to have the 3.2 in line 6, 240hp in the current 330. If this was the case, I could justify buying the 330 over the 325.
Next week I'm adding low beam HID's to the M3 for $300. It's a great company i've ran across. Great work and great looking HID's. Most cases they are brighter than factory applications. I'll upgrade the stereo of the M3 as well this month.
Now back to my decision. Which car am I going to drive to work in the morning haha!
Everyone have a great day Thursday.
By way of introduction, my wife and I live in rural far northern California, a beautiful area in which mountains, high desert, lush farmland, redwood forests, and the Pacific are all within 145 twisty road miles in any direction. Neither of us has ever owned a new car, having been well-satisfied with my '68 Volvo 122S wagon, her '83 BMW 320i, and my '68 MB 280 SE. All were purchased long ago in stellar condition from their original owners and have received tender, loving care. We love driving each of them and they have served us well. But, we have ordered a 325iT ED for our 1st ever new baby.
I live in Houston, where it is flat and pretty boring and there are no twisties, but I already have 3500 miles on my new 3 series and it is only 6 weeks old. I can't stop driving it. When times are good you want to drive to have fun and when times are bad you want to drive to pick yourself up. It is my personal therapist.
Anyway, you asked between an April '03 vs an October '04. Difficult question. My general rule is no new cars between May and the new model year. April is on the border though. By waiting you may pay a little more for the latest model, but you get to enjoy the entire first year of depreciation as opposed to buying a car that has already depreciated by one year. I doubt that there are any significant changes to the 3 series next year, but it is possible. Most think that 2005 will be the last year for the E46 and they will probably sweeten the 2005s a little to help them sell as they transition to the next model. It is possible though that given the market trend towards more powerful cars that they may do something to beef up the 2004s. I expect they will at least offer SMG on the 2004 330, like the one on the Z4, but I would rather have a manual than SMG FWIW.
If you like the 325 and are happy with how it drives and performs then I would say go with the April '03 car and start enjoying it!