Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
drive some of the cars first. if you can appreciate what an M3 has to offer over the others, get one. look at autotrader.com -- there are tons of E36 M3s available. low mileage is doable, but somewhat uncommon.
I wouldn't buy a 5 series unless you have a need for a sedan that sits 4+ in good comfort. being 21, I doubt it.
don't expect to get financing like a new car, of course. and get some insurance quotes-- you probably will get creamed on an M3 being 21. I was getting creamed at 27 until I made another vehicle my primary driver. (and haven't cheated that, putting only about 500 miles on my M3 the past 3 months.)
-Colin
I was wondering how much a BMW alarm system for a 3-series went for and if you could still get it after the vehicle has been purchased. It's not a manufacturer installed system, is it? Haha, gas here in Georgia is only $1.25/gallon for premium.
Thanks,
ajl1000
Actually, I'm not sure how long it had been sitting on the lot. I live in Chicago, and you have no idea how hard it was to find a manual. There was only one dealership in the STATE that had ANY manuals! They had three. One of them was exactly what I wanted. I guess that is fate.
In any case, I hit them up on the last day of the month after dicking them around for about 2 weeks. I offered them cash, and in this economy, they bought it (after about 4 hours of 'Oh, well I have to talk to my manager' and such)
Well, as I mentioned, I hit my break in period this weekend. Chicago is a tough place to drive given the traffic, so I have taken to driving the freeways late at night. Hit 130 mph tonight without the car even so much as flinching (before the governor kicked in). I was at about 5600 rpm's. Makes me want to chip the thing pretty bad.
Well, as I said before...I love this car. Can't wait for it to warm up.
By the way, I have heard some pretty nasty things about my Continental tires. I suppose I will have to replace them with some Michelin Pilots when these things sh*t the bed.
Thanks again everyone
C
Good news is that your car likely is prewired for it, and a self-install is easy. It took me only 1 hour install mine. You need to install the siren (under the hood), tilt sensor (in the trunk) and motion sensor (in the headliner above the back seats). Because all three parts are plug-n-play, it's quite easy.
But the alarm will not function until you take it to your dealer for "activation", which will run 50-75 dollars.
The 328i (my former car) is more contented that either the 323i or the 325i, and it has a larger engine with a lot more low end torque. One interesting note, the brakes of the 328i are the same ones as on the 325i, while the 330i brakes are larger still. The transmission used in the 328i/330i is a unit built by ZF, and it is heavier than the Getrag unit, and as such, has a different (stiffer) feel, and a slightly different shift movement (the gears are all in the same place, however, when transitioning between the 323i/325i and the 328i, you will notice it.
If you want a good comparison between my 1999 328i and Brave1Heart's 2001 325i (he and I swapped cars back on 6-Dec-2001), you can navigate back to message number 11851, or you can Search (use the Advanced Search) on "My date with Stroumpf", start on "Part 1" and scroll forward from there. Brave and I spent a day and a half with each others cars (mine was equipped with the Premium Package, his with the Sport Package). Given the cars that you are currently considering, you should find this educational.
Best Regards,
Shipo
Better still, my range of motion at my ankle is a whopping 10 degrees, I know it doesn't sound like much, however, my OS said that it was very good, and that I should be almost completely recovered within 4 to 6 weeks (strength however, is another issue).
With any luck (and some good PT), I will be back in the drivers seat of my 530i in three or four weeks, which is about three MONTHS earlier than I had initially hoped. In the mean time, I will still have to live vicariously through y'all.
Best Regards,
Shipo
Best Regards,
Shipo
But I may be wrong. The torque curves are significantly different for single vs double vanos however. The bimmer.com (or whatever) website did have curves for both engines for a period of time.
In checking the bimmer site, the FAQ's they used to have seem to be gone.
Best Regards,
Shipo
The BMWUSA site says 2000 323 has 170 hp while the 2001 has 184 (not 19 difference).
I've been helping a friend of mine locate the used 3er of his dreams lately (still searching) and there are a lot more used 323s than 328s out there (in the tri-state area).
Good luck with your search.
2001 Prelude Type SH, 2022 Highlander XLE AWD, 2022 Wrangler Sahara 4Xe, 2023 Toyota Tacoma SR 4WD
Links supplied:
http://www.theautochannel.com/content/vehicles/new/reviews/1999/l- hill_bmw_z3.html
http://www.epinions.com/auto-review-5557-754300C-38692122-prod1
http://www.bentleypublishers.com/product.htm?code=b301&subjec- t=4
I could go on, but you get the point. ;-)
Best Regards,
Shipo
my '95 M3 is only VANOS. '96 got 3.2L and double VANOS...
-Colin
Best Regards,
Shipo
:-D
-Colin
Best Regards,
Shipo
"BMW says the added cubes only account for about 30 percent of the power spike over the 2.8-liter engine, which made 193 hp and 206 pound-feet, compared with the 330i's 225 hp and 214 pound-feet. ANOTHER 57 PERCENT COMES FROM FIDDLING WITH THE PROFILES OF THE TWIN-CHAMBER INTAKE-MANIFOLD AND EXHAUST PORTS, AND THE REST COMES FROM CHANGES IN THE CAM PROFILES. Happiness through better breathing, in other words. THANKS TO THE INTAKE FINAGLES SHARED WITH THE 3.0-LITER, THE BASE 2.5-LITER SIX ALSO GETS A 14-HP JOLT TO 184 HP."
Article also has a nice discussion about the changes to the M54 engine over time, including VANOS/double VANOS.
The MY 2000 full-color brochure for the 3 Series sedan says "Double VANOS steplessly variable valve timing" is standard with BOTH 323i (170 hp at 5500 RPMs and 181 pound-feet at 3500 RPMs) and 328i (193 hp at 5500 RPMs and 206 pound-feet at 3500 RPMs). And in the Technical Guide section of the brochure, it has a section devoted to explaining double VANOS.
The MY 2001 full-color brochure then shows output as 184 hp (6000 RPMs) and 175 pound-feet (3500 RPMs) for 2.5L and 225 hp (5900 RPMs) and 214 pound-feet (3500 RPMs) for 3.0L.
You have to keep in mind that the later 2.5L engine actually lost 6-pound-feet of torque from 2000 to 2001 and today. And notice how the higher hp figures come at higher RPMs compared to MY 2000.
HP: 170@5500 RPMs
TQ: 181@3500 RPMs
WT: 3153 Lbs
The 2001 and on 325i have the following ratings:
HP: 184@6000 RPMs
TQ: 175@3500 RPMs
WT: 3241 Lbs
In theory, the 323i should actually be a little faster off the line, and the 325i should be a little faster at higher speeds. If I remember correctly, Brave1Heart posted something a year ago or so that supported this theory, however, I cannot remember the specifics of his post.
Best Regards,
Shipo
Best Regards,
Shipo
323: 181@3500
325: 175@3500
and both engines have the same bore/stroke, compression ratio, and displacement. The only difference is the engine management system. The new system actually makes less torque, although it makes more bhp.
1995 - 189 hp@5900 -> 168 ft-lbs @5900
1998 - 168 hp@5500 -> 160 ft-lbs @5500
1999 - 170 hp@5500 -> 162 ft-lbs @5000
2001 - 184 hp@6000 -> 161 ft-lbs @6000
We can furthur compute that at 6000 RPMs the torque is less than:
1995 - 165 ft-lbs
1998 - 147 ft-lbs
1999 - 149 ft-lbs
2001 - 162 ft-lbs
So I think the 2001 engine has more torque at low and high speeds than the 99-2000 engines. I suspect that the 95 engine was not good below 2000 RPMs. But others on this forum can speak to that.
-Colin
select certified preowned and then model library
Does this make any sense? Note that I have a typo on the engine speed for the 1999 models: should be 5500 RPM's!
But if I'm interested in peak HP, driving at those high RPMs, I'm not normally too interested in the twisting power of the resulting torque and vice versa. That is why modern high torque European diesels are so interesting for real world purposes from standing start and speeds around town. Torque equal low end response; HP equal high end response & top speed.
It may be easier to grasp if I make things relative:
1999-2000 engines: 181 ft-lbs@3500 170 hp@5500
At the peak hp the torque is 89% of peak and by 6000 RPMs is not more than 82% of peak
The 2001 engine: 175 ft-lbs@3500 184 hp@6000
At the peak hp the torque is 92% of peak and 90% of the older engines peak. This is a flatter torque curve. Is this clear?
You've lost me. First, not sure where you are getting the torque data at RPMs not shown in BMW or other published sources. Second, thought the flatness of the torque curve is NOT automatically relative to HP. It is more an absolute figure determined by how much the torque number varies across the engine's RPM curve. Same for the HP curve. Take two entirely different engines. One has twice the torque and 3 times the HP as the other. But if the lower output engine has no variability in torque over its torque curve, it would be absolutely flat, regardless of its HP curve or the HP and torque curves of the other engine.
So we are working with two datapoints that start at about 3500 and go to 5500 and 6000 rpms respectively. You can interpolate between those two points. The reason the 2000 engine has more hp is the higher rpm. But the pre-2000 engine reaches the peak torque faster. This means to 60 pre-2000 engine should be faster, but approaching redline the post-2000 engine should be able to pull away.
The fly in the ointment is we don't know what happens between idle and 3500 rpms. How fast the torque rises for each of the engines. That would have a small impact on the 0-60.
edit - riez I reread your above post and it you were on the money. I'm not even sure what the confusion is. Except it seems the pre-2000 engines had a little more torque at 3,500rpms. But as I said above the curve to 3500 is important also.
kdshapiro... Guess I'm not a fan of mathematical models. They are nice on paper but don't always account for the real world. Real machines and people don't act like the models might indicate. Just look at the attempts to use such models to come up with acceleration figures, top speed, fuel economy? Ever notice how many people say that BMW's hp and torque units must be more powerful than their competitors because when you use a mathematical model to come up with, say, acceleration figures, the actual result in the real world doesn't accord with the model's projection (i.e., if I estimate it on paper using variables like engine output, gear ratios, weight, tires, CD, etc.). Heck, too many people seem to disagree about the value of adjusting test data for atmospheric conditions. (I prefer R&T's unadjusted numbers, which then have the caveat that numbers within a certain range are essentially statistically equivalent). As for data points, all I see are one point for torque (published peak) and one point for HP (published peak).
So does anyone have the respective published torque curves for the 1999-2001 and 2001-2003 2.5L I-6s?
http://www.ecisbmw.com/dyno_files/01325Cidyno.htm
...and one for the '99 323 (not a good one, though)
http://www.ecisbmw.com/dyno_files/99323idyno.htm
The 325's torque curve is flatter and it does not drop off fast like the 323's. Now here's the real kicker: the '95 325 has 189 hp@5900 -> 168 ft-lbs @5900 and although it is lighter by 150 lbs and it has 5 extra ponies than the E46 325, it takes 16.1 sec at the 1/4 mile while the E46 325 takes only 15.4. I think the main reason is GEARING, as well as better engine management.
Here is a link which explains it somewhat nicely:
http://www.revsearch.com/dynamometer/torque_vs_horsepower.html
http://www.vettenet.org/torquehp.html
relevance to current discussions-- VANOS and other variable valve-timing technologies help an engine make torque at both high and low RPM. honestly VANOS isn't a great way to do it though, controlling only the phase on the cam(s). VVT technologies able to vary valve lift can have a larger effect on things. of course, other things can help two like tunable exhaust, variable length induction, etc.
cheers,
-Colin
riez: we are not talking about models here. Horsepower is NOT measured by a dynometer, only torque is measured. Horsepower is then calculated. The horsepower is a function of the engine speed and torque at that speed. So if the torque is constant (flat) then an increase of engine speed increases the horsepower - 10% faster, 10% more horsepower. This means that if the engine horsepower peaks at 5500 RPMs, then the engine must produce LESS torque at 6000 RPMs, otherwise there would be MORE horsepower at 6000 RPMs.
But what happened to the 2.5L output is unlike what happened to the output figures for the change from 2.8L to 3.0L during the same time. In that case there was a huge increase in peak HP and an increase in torque. As C&D's article pointed out, only a small part of the increases were due to the 0.2L displacement increase.
My service manager informed me that there is a service bulletin on this and my car's going back in next week to have a "steering kit" installed. From what he was saying, it sounds like just about every bushing, bearing, and even the tie-rods will be replaced (warranty).
I'm wondering if anyone else has had this done or if anyone else's car exhibits this behavior. Under normal driving conditions, I've never noticed it. It only rears it's ugly head during those cool 70-0 MPH panic stops on a congested highway and on occasion when I need to scrub off speed in a hurry when that upcoming corner is looking tighter than I had initially thought and I must slow down NOW!.
FWIW, my car is an '01 330Ci w/retro steering installed.
It is interesteing that the M3 makes 333HP and only has 261 lbft of torque.
I think the new 350z makes 280HP and 270lbft of torque at the peak -- correct me if I am wrong. How is it slower 0-60 than the M3? I think it weighs less too.
FWIW: 4 month birthday of my M3 is in 2 days and I have over 8000 miles. I live 1.8 miles from work, but I find myself taking the long way everywhere.
FWIW: $1.85 for 93 octane in Houston (Chevron)
FWIW: Have hit 155mph in the M3 twice and it is solid as a rock and still stops great from that speed -- no fade (Total time spent cruising at 155mph: 12 seconds).