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
Back in 1991 I was standing in line at a movie theater and I saw this great looking car drive by... it was the brand new Lexus SC 400. So a few months later I had to buy one. They still look great although the new style SC looks worse than even Bangle's nightmares.
So what does this say about all those BMW renters? Are they really that interested in the driving mechanics or status? I know there are quite a few enthusiasts who rent BMW's because of their handling, engine etc. Actually everyone who visits this forum probably falls under this category, but a majority of actual buyers do not.
This might also explain why Audis outsell BMWs in Germany but the sales figures are not close in the US. In the performance orientated part of the world (i.e. Germany) Audis and BMWs are very close. In the status part of the world (i.e. US) BMWs outsell Audis.
You nailed it.
The German Status thing is very influential in decision-making for many BMW owners, and yes, so many do get the automatic transmission, and yes, quite a few would probably be just as satisfied with an Accord or Camry.
All of us driving luxury vehicles have made a statement.
These high-priced performance cars are basically wasted in the USA with their ridiculous speed limits with smokey waiting to pounce on those horrible law-breakers going 30mph in a 20 mph zone while someone could be getting raped down the block.
It's a wonder anybody buys or rents BMW, Porsche or Infiniti over here.
Pretty much a waste, except for the "look at me" status thing.
Putting these cars through their paces like the autorags do, is just a forbidden fantasy to many of us.
I have avoided several highway accidents due to the agility of these extraordinary vehicles.
I feel totally safe in BMW vehicles and they have my complete confidence.
Just my two cents worth....
I remember when I first drove the original SC being extremely impressed by how modern and intuitive its controls were. The inside didn't look dated even when it went out of production in 2000. The inside of the S class coupe and 850i, on the other hand, looks straight out of the '80s.
I could not care less what logo is on my hood. It's how the car drives and whether it suits my family needs that counts. That is why I chose a BMW530xi.
I was profiling the "typical" BMW driver, who wouldn't think of ordering mt and sport package-who is more into comfort through status and would probably be just as happy driving an Accord or Camry.
I'm with you. As long as BMW's are the best-performing in their segment, I'm hooked, even though I enjoy testing other vehicles.
Can't wait to drive the twin-turbo 335i next month!
Me too.
Although we do know that at least globally Audi is giving BMW some heat even without the MLP platform.
Me 3.
I am scheduled to attend a “we’ll pay for the tires & gas, you drive it hard” BMW 335i Coupe intro event here near Atlanta a week from Sunday.
http://www.automobilemag.com/features/news/0609_2007_bmw_335i_dynamometer/
- Ray
Considering the 335i Sedan to be qualified for this Forum – as well as the 5 Series . . .
For a few grand more than a 330i you get this:
SOURCE: Automobile Magazine Sept. 2006
So in an all-out drag race, the 335i comes close, but can’t quite match the M3’s blistering acceleration. Those numbers, though, only tell half the story. Have a look at the top-gear acceleration figures. In sixth gear, the M3 needs 14.7 seconds to get from 30 to 70 mph – but the 335i does it in only 12.5.
That, my friends, is the beauty of this engine. At full bore, it’s as fast as an M3. But at moderate engine speeds, it’s even faster. What a great way to keep us all interested until the next M3 comes along.
AMAZING!
Stepping away from the reason for reporting that metric for a moment, it does seem to be a good indicator of lower end torque. So, while I'm not likely to employ my car in that manner so that I can brag about being able to do 30-70 in sixth in 12.5 seconds, I would very much enjoy the plentiful supply of low end torque in other situations (and probably brag on that instead). ;-)
Best Regards,
Shipo
Low end torque would be non-existant starting from 30 in 6th gear.
No, I got your point, however when I responded I failed to mention that I've yet to have a 6-Speed and that my "Top Gear" driving has all been in 3rd, 4th or 5th (depending upon the car). So, what I should have said was:
"Who does that? Depends upon what kind of traffic you're driving in. Can't say that I've ever done it in top gear, can't say that I haven't."
Thinking about this further, I rather doubt that I'd operate a car in that fashion, however, I suppose anything is possible.
"Low end torque would be non-existant starting from 30 in 6th gear."
With two small turbo chargers on tap, it might could well not be as low as one might think.
Best Regards,
Shipo
On German cars: "No matter how well done the rest of the car is — and the new A6 has some sweetheart potential — MMI-type experiences are another signal that German brands should be placed on suicide watch It's systems such as iDrive, MMI and Mercedes' Comand that can cause the problems and dissatisfaction that lead to low scores on quality surveys, though MMI is less complicated than the others and Audi has tried to make many functions available without toggling through a thicket."
But he likes the Jaguar XK, so he writes: " Is a good-looking, less-complicated alternative to the BMW 6 Series for a similar price Fancy features worked well and were easier to use than expected." What does he mean by "easier to use than expected? "Jag says it tried not to bury anything more than four layers deep in a menu. Most were much more accessible than that." Anything four layers deep on a German car sends this guy over the edge. But with Jag, he repeatedly reports to readers that he asked the company to explain why they do or don't have some feature and gives Jag's justification.
Brand power works with professional car critics too and this case shows the variance among individuals. Although Business Week shows that, on average, certain brand images carry a positive valence in the collective consciousness of consumers, it's also the case that certain brand images find a niche in specific individuals and for that loved object they will tolerate what they hate in a product where the brand image carries no such positive valence for them.
it almost appears that the folks at Automobile Magazine went out of their way in finding the right gear/mileage range that confirmed their hypothesis that the 335i performs better than a M3.
Doesn't C&D do top gear acceleration tests as well? I think its just a different way to measure engine power. Top Gear put a Z06 in 6th and then drove from a standstill to something like 175mph+. It wasnt supposed to be a realistic test, just to show what the engine can do.
True but after reading the conclusion above it does sound like a 335i is superior to a M3 in terms of realistic driving.
SOURCE: Automobile Magazine Sept. 2006
So in an all-out drag race, the 335i comes close, but can’t quite match the M3’s blistering acceleration. Those numbers, though, only tell half the story. Have a look at the top-gear acceleration figures. In sixth gear, the M3 needs 14.7 seconds to get from 30 to 70 mph – but the 335i does it in only 12.5.
Purplem46 writes:
"In sixth gear, the M3 needs 14.7 seconds to get from 30 to 70 mph – but the 335i does it in only 12.5"...that has to be the most bizzare acceleration test I have ever heard of. 30 to 70 in sixth gear? Who does that?
Low end torque would be non-existant starting from 30 in 6th gear.
Well, yes and no. The torque doesn’t get to the wheels because of gearing but it still exists at the engine. That test is a good demonstration of pure engine torque much in the manner that the weight of a person on a seesaw becomes less effective as he approaches the fulcrum. The closer you get to the fulcrum, the more weight that is needed to lift the person on the other end. The higher the gearing in a car, the more torque that is needed to accelerate it.
335i torque = 300 lb-ft at 1400-5000 rpm
E46 M3 torque = 262 lb-ft at 4900 rpm
(Automobile mag erroneously reports the M3 torque at 202)
The biased views of car critics proliferate within the auto sections of many a newspaper and throughout the auto rags.
More typically we see the admiration for the German marques and especially the bias towards the Japanese marques.
A British bias, while still a bias, is almost always a welcome and much-deserved relief, IMO.
Jaguar's last generation of all-aluminum XJ and XK vehicles deserve even more positive publicity than they get, IMO. They are gorgeous, very fairly priced, and have consistently done exceptionally well in JD Powers surveys . . . indicating that the quality is within a stone's throw of Lexus.
That's quite an accomplishment, IMO.
TagMan
I dunno if +5 HP over the most recent iteration of the 3.0 (@ 255) is enough here in LPS-land. But it is +35HP over the last gen 3.0 @ 225. I'd say the Germans (Audi, BMW and Mercedes and even VW) will be able to keep up with the Japanese.
I, for one, would like to see a new German "normal" car (not M, not S, not RS, not AMG, i.e.) be brought to market with a HP advantage over the competition (across the board.)
I would almost swear that Audi and BMW have an off site meeting and they agree: "we'll bring ours to market with 255HP, how about you? Uh, OK, we'll bring ours to market with the same HP!" "Thanks Hans." "You welcome Klaus."
Now, here we go the normally aspirated 3.0 from BMW last year was 255HP as was the Audi "3.2" (really 3.1+, but who's counting?)
Meanwhile back in Munich, BMW was blowing on the 3.0 to add 45HP, Audi was dinking around with an unblown 3.6L at 280HP and was scurrying hither and yon to convert all the family to FSI and adding a turbo here and there to the RS cousins.
Then Audi announces an A5 coupe and wham, BMW actually gets a 3 series coupe with a blown 3.0 not only announced but ooot and abooot with 300HP.
God only knows what AMG has in the wings. But the Audi buzz is that the light bi-turbo treatment on the 3.2FSI has "no problemo" cranking out 300HP and about 343 pound feet at some really low RPM's.
What a great time it is to be alive if acceleration without the V8 penalty presses your "start" button.
The Audi 2.0TFSI is supposed good for 350 civilized horses.
Holy horsepower Batman!
I wonder what the new turbo i6 from BMW would feel like in an X3. AWD, steel + sex perhaps?
Although this is about the X3, there is a bit herein on the new 3.0si engine, which one can only presume will be put into the 5 series, uh, SOON!
Klik Here for Info on BMW 3.0si -- and the newly refreshed X3
A six cylinder Tacoma pickup has more torque than an M3 as well, but it's just not as fast.
The new G coupe could be faster still, perhaps faster than the 335. I don't know if the 3.7L rumors are true, but even with 3.5, it should still be able to take 0-60 sprints down to the near 5 second flat mark.
= = =
The US Press Information also claims EPA MPG for the 335i Coupe with STEP ( the way I’d buy one ) will be: 20 / 29.
- Ray
Finding those numbers, combined with the performance, to be rather impressive . . .
“BMW says that this engine makes 300 horsepower and 300 lb-ft of torque. We were so impressed with its power that we couldn’t help wonder if that was a conservative rating. Wasting no time, I swiped the keys and drove to a local dyno shop to find out.
We used a DynoJet chassis dyno, which measures an engine’s power output at a vehicle’s rear wheels. Because of frictional driveline losses, this number is always lower--generally by fifteen to twenty percent--than the quoted power output from the manufacturer, which is measured at the engine itself.
Here’s what we found:
The non-turbocharged 330i, rated by BMW at 255 hp and 220 lb-ft of torque, puts about 200 hp and 180 lb-ft to the rear wheels. That’s roughly a twenty-percent loss. Since they have similar drivelines, you’d expect the 335i to put down 235 hp and 250 lb-ft.
But it didn’t. It put down a whole lot more: 275 hp and 300 lb-ft. A few quick taps on our trusty calculator shows that this engine is likely putting out closer to 350 hp and 360 lb-ft of torque."
BMW’s published specs are always conservative but this really seems like an anomaly. Hope it’s true. I don’t know though. I think it should have done better than 5.1 secs to 60 according to Automobile's dyno and calcs. In any event, I’ll take it.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
BMW’s published specs are always conservative but this really seems like an anomaly.
That difference is strikingly large, and let's hope it works in BMW's favor. Regardless, the engine sounds sensational, and is a genuine treat for Bimmer enthusiasts, IMO.
TagMan
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Followup/articleId=116521
Now, we all know this, even if it comes true, will be temporary. $4.00+ gas is a foregone conclusion -- it is just a matter of time.
Once again, Audi has, what I think is a fine response -- even if this was NOT exactly intended as an economy response:
"The little engine that could," used to be the 1.8T as it was in the Euro only S3 and the American and Euro TT 225. That engine, loved by many was replaced with an engine that has already proven to have almost unbelievable potential. We welcomed the 2.0T FSI with open arms. The thing loafs along and produces 200HP all the while sipping gas. A new engine map here, a slightly bigger turbo there and a new exhaust system has cranked the thing to 350HP while retaining almost zero turbo lag and daily driver friendliness.
Don't try this at home -- Audi frowns on making this little dude output 350 hp and weapons grade torque.
But, Audi itself has blinked and now has shown us what a tiny tiny tweak to this engine can produce: 220HP and it doesn't even sweat.
Audi is extending the A4 model line by launching an additional version of the four-cylinder 2.0 TFSI model which generates 220 bhp. This Audi A4 2.0 TFSI, which can also be ordered in Avant version, is available either with quattro permanent four-wheel drive or front-wheel drive, both of which come in combination with a 6-speed manual gearbox.
This engine was previously available exclusively in conjunction with the “DTM Edition” (saloon) or with S line plus (Avant) special models. The new variant now offers the option of combining this extremely powerful engine with refined looks. The new variants of the A4 and A4 Avant are only recognizable to those in the know by their perforated front brake discs and matt black tailpipes.
This variant of the Audi A4 is powered by what is currently the most powerful version of the 2.0 TFSI in the model line. The output of this direct-injection petrol engine with turbocharger has been boosted from 200 to 220 bhp, and torque increased from 280 to 300 Nm. The performance figures of the A4 saloon (with front-wheel drive) are correspondingly impressive: it accelerates from a standstill to 100 km/h in 7.1 seconds and achieves a top speed of 247 km/h. Overall fuel consumption amounts to 8.0 litres per 100 kilometers.
Now, in the world of "unintended consequences" this engine with a slight change in engine mapping, not even a new turbo and simply a cat back exhaust replacement is quite happy to produce 250HP and even more torque. Yawn, even then this engine is frugal with your gas money.
Audi surely didn't intend to make the 2.0T FSI the power, performance and economy leader -- did it?
If you want an argument [against] "the internal combustion engine is a dinosaur" (no pun intended with its use of fossil fuels) you only have to look as far as the 2.0T FSI. This engine, when it has added to it ONE little enhancement, gets even better. That little enhancement is a motor than spins the turbo impeller at a certain number of RPM's when the driver is simply putt-putting around -- the result, 100% of the [quite substantial] torque is available AT ANY ENGINE RPM!
With cleaner fuels, Audi has even another possible trick up its sleeve: the compression ratio of the engine can be raised OR the car can be made to perform on regular gasoline. In the first case, the power and efficiency rise yet again, in the second case the annual cost for fuel drops about $.20 per gallon without engine damage.
GM and Ford, to name two, seem to struggle to produce engines with "adequate" power and acceptable gas mileage -- they use Multi Displacement Technology in an attempt to improve economy, all the while making the engine 3, 4 or more liters in size. Its no wonder they can't get their CAFE numbers up, they keep making bigger engines not more effective and efficient engines.
Audi, and others (BMW, too, for instance) are really coming on strong as engine companies. GM and others could wisely spend some money and buy up a few dozen A4 2.0T's and disassemble the engines and then shamelessly imitate them!
It would be good for fuel economy, it would be good for getting us off Persian Gulf oil and it would be a blast to drive cars so equipped.
Now, if the Audi Engineers would just stop frowning on a 350HP 2.0T FSI -- it boggles the mind. A car, so equipped, would be darn near an S4, but the thing would, relatively speaking, sip gas.
LPS cars with 350HP 4 cylinder engines (when gas is $4/gallon)? I would certainly consider one.
Dream a little dream with me.
Drive it like you live. :shades:
...and, IMHO, not all that interesting/timely since the much-improved (in terms of HP, torque range, and gas mileage) 4.2 FSI engine is now showing up on dealer-lots in the 2007 A6 line.
I have also read a couple of posts on other forums where someone driving the A6 with air adative suspension in "sport/dynamic" mode seems to feel they got the best of both worlds, in terms of cushy/sporty. But I only drove that once in a rented Allroad, where I did enjoy it.
The new RS4 has it, and frankly, it seems like it ought to be less expensive than the air version which isn't REAL TIME from what I gather. DRC is, however.
The RS6 version was great and was greatly criticized not for its functionality, but for its frequency of repair.
Perhaps Yamaha (I think that is the source) has figured out how to make it less likely to go bump.
I just had the turbos replaced on my 2000 A6 w/95,000 last week and now the "check engine" light is on again, fairly sure it is a mass air sensor or some similar part.Once this is repaired, going to try to move this car down the road towards either the x-3 or RDX.
X3 vs RDX -- just go to BMW, X3 and klik klik there it is.
The RDX with all options will come in $10,000 less than a comparably equipped X3.
It merits some attention for that fact alone.
Of course if it drives and rides like it costs $10,000 less, well then it isn't much competition for the X3.
Here in LPS land, if you could find a car that appeared "damn close" to a BMW 5 or Infiniti M or Audi A6 or whatever your favorite flavor was and it was a 5 figure to the left of the decimal point less MSRP, wouldn't you at least mull it over.
I'd like to see a full on test of a maxed out Chrysler 300C vs a Cadillac STS.
I don't know if that is some kind of flawed reasoning, but it seems similar to the situation between the X3 and the RDX, yes/no/maybe?
I was, long ago, looking at an Audi 4000S vs the then VW product called a Quantum. I did, at that time, go ahead and buy the 4000S, several years later, though, the Quantum came out with full leather the EXACT same 5 cylinder engine as was in the Audi, the 5 speed stick a nice stereo and on and on and on -- THAT time, I bought the Quantum. Traded it a year later for an Audi 80 quattro sport.
The point is, using the LPS cars as a starting point, there are more and more near-LPS cars that seem like they "might" get our attention due in large part to their near-LPS content and way below LPS price.
Well, that was the idea behind the Phaeton, too, wasn't it.
Hmm -- never mind. :confuse:
Most of the reviews I've seen seem to think that it does. The underlying theme seems to be, "why does this cost so much" when compared to a Mazda CX-7 or Rav4, rather than "why does this cost so little" when compared to the X3. I think Acura missed the mark. (Again)
I test drove the RDX and my comments are on the appropriate thread. FWIW, I don't think the Acura's driving dynamics can match the bimmers, but I don't think BMW can match the Acura in dollar value, gadgets, [nav, stereo are in a different league] or long term cost to own.
My two cents, worth about a cent.
PS I hate Toyotas. I'll admit it. They don't drive for crap, and are uncomfortable for me. They are too much like a blender. [see above comment about dollar value/my opinion]
"
I think the "aversion" can be spelled with two letters: TL. For significantly less $$$, the TL offers better performance, more room and superior styling. Had the RL come out of the gate priced in the low $40s, it might have fared better.
The car itself is a fine piece of work from what I've seen/read. But, the wrong car at the wrong price will not sell as the mfg. hopes, imho. (See: VW Phaeton or MB R Class...)
'21 Dark Blue/Black Audi A7 PHEV (mine); '22 White/Beige BMW X3 (hers); '20 Estoril Blue/Oyster BMW M240xi 'Vert (Ours, read: hers in 'vert weather; mine during Nor'easters...)
The RL could be had at 41 very soon after the gate, and still can be pretty close to that.
Not true. The TL is 1 second faster to 60 than the RL (more with the 6MT). In Edmunds slalom tests, the TL was 5mph faster, despite not having "Super-Handling" AWD. Most of the effort of the AWD system is used to keep the RL from understeering off of the road, thanks to worst in class weight distribution. A 4,000lb luxury car is not going to out handle a performance sedan that weighs 500lbs less. The TL TypeS will only make the performance gap that much wider.
If you ask me, $7K is an awful lot of money for AWD, a questionably better stereo (The TL's is one of the best in class) some Nav upgrades and a sunshade. Even BMW would give you more than that for $7K.