BMW 3-Series 2005 and earlier

pheonixuno · February 2003

Hey guys I'm just getting into the whole BMW deal now that I've figured I want a more mature car. I'm 21 in CT and have a 96 civic cx hatchback and I do enjoy the great gas mileage but now I want to have more adult car. I was looking in my classifieds and found 323-325-328 and M3's all under $21,000. I wanted a car from 97-and up and in the area of 50k or so miles. Edmunds doesn't really give a lot of detail on all these models so I'm looking for more sites and really any info. Also I read that the 528 or 540 could be in neighborhood price range. I am a spirited driver with no tickets and at first I really looked at lot at the M3. Any suggestions or info?

locke2c · February 2003

suggestion:

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

ajl1000 · February 2003

Hi!
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

cfeldma · February 2003

nyccarguy-

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

ipatty13 · February 2003

OEM Alarms for an E46 can be purchased at a discount for about $225 (try Circle BMW or Pacific BMW). Yes, these are custom BMW alarms.

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.

pheonixuno · February 2003

After more thought about the 5 series I have decided against it and decided to stick with the 3 series. I have to find out about my insurance with an m3. Could anyone recommend then or tell what the differences really are between the 323-325 and 328? Thanx

mseals · February 2003

I just bought a 528i about 4 months ago. I love it but it was a big jump from my 2000 Civic Si. I needed the size since my kids are bigger even though I only have them every other week. I wanted the 4 doors and I wanted to stay near $17k since I was in the middle of paying off all my bills from the divorce. Well, I ended up getting a CPO'd 98 528i 5sp. Manual are very hard to find in the 5ers, especially if it isn't a 540. That being said, I probably could have gotten a 3ers as long at it had the fold down rear seats. I never take more than two people in my car so I even could have gotten a coupe. In a few years I think I will trade this car in for a 325Ci or 330Ci. I just love the coupe body style but I will have to make sure it is a manual and has fold down rear seats. The trunks are the 3ers is a little small for my taste. Happy shopping, and oh yeah, the insurance might be a little stiff for a 21 yr old in an M3. I just got my insurance premium bill and it is $716 every 6 months.

shipo · February 2003

Off the top of my head, the main differences are Torque and Content. The 323i and 325i have (if I'm not mistaken) the same basic engine, with just a different Cam and different computer settings. Both cars share the same manual transmission (Getrag), and similar content, however, that varies with which packages were ordered, and model year (newer cars have slightly more content).

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

shipo · February 2003

Great news from my Orthopedic Sturgeon today, my right leg is "Almost healed". Off came the rigid fiberglass cast, and on went an "Aircast", which is kind of a funky Go-Go boot with three big Velcro straps and foot print that gives "Gun Boats" a whole new meaning. ;-)

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

kdshapiro · February 2003

Great news and good luck with the healing process. I hope you and Mrs. Shipo don't come to blows over the ceremonial transfer of the Bimmer.

fjk57702 · February 2003

I think the big difference in the engines is double VANOS vs single VANOS - VANOS is german for variable valve timing. So the intake and exhaust valve timing can vary on the 325 while the 323 varies only on the intake.

shipo · February 2003

Ummm, it depends upon which year 323i. Unless I am very much mistaken, the E46 (1999 and 2000) 323i DID in fact have the "Double VANOS" system.

Best Regards,
Shipo

fjk57702 · February 2003

I am not an expert, but as I recall, Car & Driver more or less said that the 323 was "upgraded" to 325 because the engine (a 2.5 liter in both cars) was upgraded to double vanos. The 328 was single vanos and the 330's are double vanos.

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.

shipo · February 2003

Click on the link to the left under "Helpful Links" titled "Long-Term Road Test: 1999 BMW 328i".

Best Regards,
Shipo

fjk57702 · February 2003

Checking the bmwusa site shows that the difference in horsepower from 1998 to 1999 is 3. I don't think double VANOS is the explanation. I will check the SAE Journal (if I can find it) to see what they say. I think there is some confusion over DOHC and double VVT.

fjk57702 · February 2003

Didn't find anything in SAE Journal, but Oct 98 issue of Car&Driver does confirm that the 2.8 liter engine was upgraded to double VANOS @193 hp. However, the 2.5 is not discussed. In the Oct 2000 issue the 323 is upgraded to 325 and the 2.5 liter engine is upgraded by 19 extra hp. I think this is when the 2.5 got the double VANOS and other adjustments to boost the power. Certainly the 325 has more power than the 323.

The BMWUSA site says 2000 323 has 170 hp while the 2001 has 184 (not 19 difference).

nyccarguy · February 2003

Definitely drive all the cars you're looking at before remotely making any kind of decision. An E36 M3 is an awesome car, but unless you put it your father's or mother's name you will get slaughtered for insurance. I'm 26 with a previously clean driving record (out of assigned risk) and was quoted over $3K per year for my 2001 Honda Prelude Type SH. The car is insured in my Dad's name and it saves me over $1000 per year.

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.

shipo · February 2003

I am reasonably certain that the 1999 and 2000 323i engines DID in fact have the Double VANOS system. FWIW, I did a little checking, and the results, 100% agreement, Double VANOS for 1999 for both the 2.5 Liter I6 (which was in the 323i and the Z3 2.3) and the 2.8 Liter I6.

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

locke2c · February 2003

that's a 99-00 though. I don't believe the 2.5L in the E36 was double VANOS at any point. It was lucky to have VANOS!

my '95 M3 is only VANOS. '96 got 3.2L and double VANOS...

-Colin

shipo · February 2003

I think that this discussion has been about 1999 and later models. I just wanted to make sure that the individual who posted above was not mislead regarding the content of the E46 models. ;-)

Best Regards,
Shipo

locke2c · February 2003

it might have shifted that way due to what most respondants own, but I'm sure the original poster on this subject was asking about 97-up and initially focused on the M3.

:-D

-Colin

shipo · February 2003

Fair 'nuff. ;-)

Best Regards,
Shipo

fjk57702 · February 2003

The basic difference between the 323 and the 325 is 14 horsepower, whatever the technical differences actually are.

riez · February 2003

Check out the December 2000 Car & Driver, their test of new 330i. Excerpt:

"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.

shipo · February 2003

The 1999 and 2000 323i have the following ratings:

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

shipo · February 2003

I see that great minds think along similar patterns, again. ;-) You and I must have been working on the two above posts at the same time.

Best Regards,
Shipo

jb_shin · February 2003

Interesting torque rating for both engines:

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.

vkwheels · February 2003

Would it be too weird (or risky) to plan a vacation to the West Coast, buy your car here, and then drive it home? just throwing the idea out there.

fjk57702 · February 2003

Looking at the bmw web site one can find for the 2.5 liter 6:
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.

locke2c · February 2003

From 92-95 there was no 328, so of course the 2.5L made more power. When the 328 arrived, note the immediate and substantial loss of output.

-Colin

pheonixuno · February 2003

Very interesting stuff is there a web page with all the differences that happened from 97 on. I really have to check with my insurance for the M3. I pay 140 for 4 months and then I get 2 off but that is for my 96 civic. It really is interesting to read all the differences between the cars.

fjk57702 · February 2003

http://www.bmwusa.com/
select certified preowned and then model library

riez · February 2003

fjk... Why didn't you include the MY 2000 torque and hp data? (Methinks some of your numbers are off. The 2.5L torque data for 1999 and 2001 seems too low.)

fjk57702 · February 2003

shipo and others have posted the peak torque. What I did is compute backward from the peak horsepower, the torque at that engine speed. We know that the peak horse power is at 5500 on the 1999 and 2000 MY engines. So the torque @6000 RPMs will produce no more horsepower than @5500 which puts an upper limit on the torque at 6000 RPMs. Generally torque drops off fairly quickly after the peak horsepower is reached (for increasing engine speed).

Does this make any sense? Note that I have a typo on the engine speed for the 1999 models: should be 5500 RPM's!

riez · February 2003

fjk... Peak torque is normally produced thousands of RPMs less than peak HP. IF the torque curve is flat enough, torque decline won't be too bad at peak HP RPM. Key is to have high torque and flat torque curve. I-6 helps do this as does double VANOS and all the other things BMW does to have efficient and effective high output engine.

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.

fjk57702 · February 2003

What I demonstrated was that the 2001 engine does have a "flat" torque curve relative to the 1999-2000 engine (2.5 liter). I also demonstrated that the torque curve is not flat.

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?

riez · February 2003

fjk... Give me their respective HP and torque output figures at 2K, 3K, peak torque, 4K, 5k, 6k, and redline. That would let me see how flat their respective torque curves are.

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.

fjk57702 · February 2003

Horsepower is a function of the torque and engine speed. This is physics. So we have two published torque numbers, the first one is torque, the second is horsepower from which the torque can be computed. This may be beyond your capability to grasp.

kdshapiro · February 2003

It would be easier to see it graphed. We are basically working with two data points. HP is mathematically derived from torque and engine speed and with one you can derive the other.

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.

riez · February 2003

fjk... Is likely beyond me. Physics, chemistry, and mathematics are not my fortes. Thought we were talking about the absolute flatness of an engine's torque curve. I wasn't talking about differences in output. Differing engines have differing torque curves. BMW's 4.4L V-8 has a different torque curve than its 2.5L I-6 or its 5.0L V-12. Even within a given type of engine (e.g., the universe of all I-4s regardless of manufacturer) there are a zillion different torque curves. Some are flatter than others. Some have similar relative flatness. The differences in displacement and other factors (e.g., breathing efficiency and exhaust restrictions) lead to different outputs.

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?

brave1heart · February 2003

Here's a dyno for the '01 325.

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.

kdshapiro · February 2003

horsepower = torque * RPM / 5252

Here is a link which explains it somewhat nicely:
http://www.revsearch.com/dynamometer/torque_vs_horsepower.html

locke2c · February 2003

well if we're going to be attempting to enlighten anyone, let's at least use a decent link:

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

kdshapiro · February 2003

Click here for Modern Engine Design 101!. Send away for your free diploma and you can be employed by auto manufacturers as a top shelf engine designer.

fjk57702 · February 2003

What set this off was a question about what the differences were between the 323 and 325 engines. I thought (incorrectly) that the 2001 2.5 was upgraded to double VANOS, but in fact the engine tuning was upgraded to optimize the double VANOS.

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.

riez · February 2003

fjk... Yes, we were discussing the VANOS, double VANOS, and other changes, but I thought the actual underlying question concerned the output differences between the 1999-2000 and 2001-2003 2.5L I6. The former have higher peak torque but lower peak HP. The latter have lower peak torque but higher peak HP. And the peaks come at different RPMs. Is interesting that the changes didn't produce increases in peak torque and HP. Not sure if they led to any increases in fuel economy, either. Didn't that then have us discussing torque curves? Think we'd all agree that higher output (both torque and HP) is better, as is higher efficiency, and flatter torque curves that include beefy torque at lowish 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.

kominsky · February 2003

I had my car at my dealership for PA state inspection on Thursday. I mentioned that a quick stab at the brake pedal results in the steering wheel yanking to the right for a fraction of a second. The steering immediately centers itself and the car doesn't change direction. It also doesn't exhibit the light pedal pressure "thumping" of a warped rotor.

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.

fjk57702 · February 2003

The change in size from 2.8 to 3.0 makes it difficult to judge. Torque is a function of engine size to some extent. The increase in size would suggest that the 3 liter engine might have produced about 220 ft-lbs with the same tuning. So perhaps the 3 liter engine has less torque too, but more horsepower.

leenelsonmd · February 2003

Instead of peak torque and HP I think it would be more useful to know the area under the torque and HP curves from 1000rpm to the redline. This would be more useful.

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).

BMW 3-Series 2005 and earlier

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles