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
Maybe theoretically thinking that the scale is 1 to 3 would help. If the frontier is one point higher at three and the ranger at two than thats a 33% difference and the ranger would be earning a failing mark.
Plus there must be some reason I've heard of so many ranger buy backs for on going problems. Then again I'm sure you have six more friends that had their Frontier's bought back by Nissan. Hey, and we know that you have never had a problem with your Ranger(s) and we believe you but you act as if no one has had a problem with a Ranger. I'll admit freely that Nissan Frontiers have their share of problems, they just seem to occur less often.
FACT 1)Your Ranger has less hp then my Frontier.
FACT 2)You looked under your truck and did not know what you were looking at.
FACT 3)You know nothing about the mechanical part of the vehicle,and even less about the hp and torque relationships.It is kinda funny how you never seem to offer any assistance to anybody on an explanation.All you do is pop up with some remark,and the best part is you show your a**.
FACT 4)You defintely know less about going off road then you have claimed.
FACT 5)You are the one that has instigated the name calling.
FACT 6)You are really good at cutting and pasting as well as links.
FACT 7)You ignore the questions and issues put to you.You remind me of the knights in the Holy Grail.The term was "RUN AWAY".Or maybe the new movie for the family that came out not too long ago.I believe it was "Chicken Run".
FACT 8)You are correct about the engine options,but,the FACT is that the majority of people buy the smaller engines.
Fact 9)Ford is in trouble.
FACT 10)Your Ranger will make a good campfire.LOL
The question to you is, Got Brains" ?
1. Ford is not in trouble, only you Nissan guys like to think so.
2. Let me see, which company was how many billions in debt?? Not Ford, does the name Renault ring a bell?
3. I have listed enough times links and data over and over and over and over, anything I bring to the table is immediatly dismissed..
4. 10 HP, 10, 10, 10 is that enough so you can read it now? a 10, 10 10 HP difference. You have no clue on how much 10 HP is going to make a difference do you in relation to 160HP and 170HP. Torque is the issue you constantly shy away from, why? Weren't you the one who posted the HP/Torque curves for the 4.0 and the SOHC 4.0? You shot yourself in the foot by doing that.
5. I looked under my truck and compared it to a 1998 Nissan Frontier XE 4x4 with its owner right beside me! Yes, WE, WE, WE (Can you read that?) Couldn't see what the huge difference or what made a Frontier anybetter than a Ranger suspension wise...
So, keep up the Ford bashing and the Ford can't do this, and the Ford can't do that, and the Fords are garbage and the Fords are junk talk. I shut you down bud and you don't like it...
Ranger: 0
Frontier: 1
Don't worry Vince, the Ranger was only one point behind the Frontier (even thought it was unacceptable). For the rest of you intelligent consumers out there, I know that my new rating system is oversimplified. This new rating system conforms to Vince's warped logic. As long as the Ranger is only one point behind the Frontier, it could not be all that bad.
On another note, I took my 2000 SE CC over about 10 miles of very rough water-bar fire roads today to reach some excellent mountain bike trails. The whole time on the trail, I kept thinking how smooth and quiet my Frontier was. Even at 25 to 30 over the stutter bumps there were no rattles or any noise. My old Ranger would have sounded like a string of tin cans being dragged behind some newlyweds getaway car. Hey, but then again, the Ranger only trails by one point.
When I woke up, I felt like a new man. Thanks to this life changing event, I now realize what a piece of junk my Ford Ranger is. Tomorrow morning, I will be at the Nissan dealer to buy my new Frontier. Nissan Rules!!
You say I do not know how the LSD works.What part smart guy was wrong in either explanation?I have NEVER read a post from you when somebody asks for an explanation on something.All you post is that the person does not know and your LOL.Well,you are actually LOL at YOURSELF.
You said:
1. Ford is not in trouble, only you Nissan guys
like to think so.
2. Let me see, which company was how many billions
in debt?? Not Ford, does the name Renault ring a
bell?
READ the paper and watch the news.If Venezuela wanting to press criminal charges,and Florida launching an investigation on Racketeering charges against Firestone AND FORD is not trouble,then you have one strange definition of trouble.The subsequent drop in stock prices as well as the loss in sales and what all of this is costing Ford has yet to be added up.At least nobody from Nissan or as you like to put in there Renault is looking at going to prison.
You said:
3. I have listed enough times links and data over
and over and over and over, anything I bring to the
table is immediatly dismissed..
You are absolutely correct in this.You have posted the same links and data over and over and over and over .................................again.It has been discussed,acknowleged and we try to go on.Somehow you cannot seem to get past that,on ANY board you post to.You would think that after posting the same things almost verbatim on every board that you might get tired.No such luck.It is quite apparent that what you have posted over and over...................is ALL THAT YOU HAVE TO SAY on ANY TOPIC.It is like a broken record.
You said:
4. 10 HP, 10, 10, 10 is that enough so you can
read it now? a 10, 10 10 HP difference. You have
no clue on how much 10 HP is going to make a
difference do you in relation to 160HP and 170HP.
Torque is the issue you constantly shy away from,
why? Weren't you the one who posted the HP/Torque
curves for the 4.0 and the SOHC 4.0? You shot
yourself in the foot by doing that.
You made an issue about these numbers.YOU posted the first numbers and said how the Frontier did not have the hp or torque.YOU kept making this an issue.Now that the numbers on YOUR PERSONAL truck shows that YOU have 10 hp less YOU conveniently now say that 10 hp is not much and say that now Torque is the main number to go by.I did not post torque curves.I was one that asked you for the Ranger torque curve based on the peak RPM.WRONG AGAIN. Using YOUR words just live with YOUR underpowered Ranger.LOL!!
You said:
5. I looked under my truck and compared it to a
1998 Nissan Frontier XE 4x4 with its owner right
beside me! Yes, WE, WE, WE (Can you read that?)
Couldn't see what the huge difference or what made
a Frontier anybetter than a Ranger suspension
wise...
Oh yes I read that.I am still laughing.Alzheimer's
must be setting in on you.The original reason for you to look under your truck was because you disagreed with a post by cncman on frame construction.He posted:
The frame
of course has alot to do with suspension and what
we are talking about, the frontier has a variable
thickness welded ladder frame with full length box
sectioned frame rails, the ranger has partial box
sectioned frame rails that stop at the front of the
cab and c sectioned for the remainder. A truck, of
course needs a strong frame, also the more solid
the frame, the more rigidity, and less NVH you
have.
You were challenged to look under your truck and tell us how YOUR frame was constructed.Your answer?
Yes, WE, WE, WE (Can you read that?)
Couldn't see what the huge difference or what made
a Frontier anybetter than a Ranger suspension
wise...
Which STILL means,DUH we still do not know what we are looking at.I am sure you would explain it but for 2 reasons.1)You have no idea.LOL. 2)You have not found a link.
Lastly,shut me down?Please explain that to me.What does shut me down mean?Shut down would mean that I would not be posting here.That,you have no control over.
vince a legend in his own mind.LO................L
It boils down to YOU cannot stand that there are HAPPY,CONTENT,Frontier owners who enjoy their trucks,despite ALL of the links,stats,data,tests.It has to be a burr under YOUR saddle.It must keep you awake at night to know that.That is the only conceivable reason for you to post the SAME STUFF over and over and over.........................................again.It is kinda funny,you still have not answered my questions.What are you trying to accomplish?
You sure duck alot of questions posed to you.Maybe they are too hard.Pack your fire extinguisher and loaded your marshmallows?
I like the new rating system croy2.Now we have data that counters some of the data that vince posts.It would be very hard to dispute that data.
Cncman, are you talking 4x4 or 4x2? My "rack" is not anymore exposed than a Frontier? I have skidplates? and protection, Don't forget my Ranger is the offroad Ranger. It does come with a few more goodies than a normal Ranger 4x4..
I will take another look with the guy at work and see what you are talking about..
Ranger Pic2
Here are some great pics of a Ranger off-road. Vince, can you take some pictures with your ranger actually doing some off-roading. Your pics just like you parked in front of the park sign and sprayed dirt all over your ranger. I can do that too. I posted these once before but I don't think vince saw them.
How come ford had to replace the 4.0 with the SOHC 4.0? The whole engine is the bandaid because the old 4.0 couldn't be modified for more output and still be cost effective. Vince also must be worried about having forced injection since he goes offroading so much.
The new October Motor Trend has an article on the new Frontier. They tested a 2wd 5-speed manual Supercab Frontier with the new Supercharged 3.3L V6 rated at 210hp and 240ft/lbs of torque.
What struck me as funny was the truck's performance. It had a 0-60 of only 9.3s and a 1/4 mile of 16.8s @79.6mph.
I'm not into racing trucks or anything, but this seems very, very slow for a truck with 210hp and 240ft/lbs of torque.
Even the old and weak (as you Nissan guys like to put it) OHV 4L can outrun the S/C Nissan. A 2wd 5sp OHV 4L Ranger will run 0-60 in less than 9s (usually tests around 8.7-8.9s) and will run a quarter around 16.2 @82mph.
Hell, all of the other compact trucks when equipped with their best engine offering will beat the Nissan with the 3.3L S/C V6. And, they have less torque and horsepower (well the S10/Sonoma has 10 more ft/lbs).
What's going on here?
Motor Trend also wrote that not all SC Frontiers they drove sounded the same. They said that some were completely quiet (as if no S/C were present) and others had the high-pitch whine of the S/C. Some early production variances that need to be ironed out? Maybe an indicator as the the S/C Frontier's lackluster performance?
On another note, I was surprised by the Frontier's towing capacity of 3500lbs. I thought it was more or could have been more with the engine upgrade.
As for the rest of the truck:
-The interior looks very nice. I really like the aluminum-type accents. Throw in an aluminum shift knob with a leather boot, and it would be great. What's up with their parking brake? I've never liked those. I like the white-faced guages.
-The exterior needs some work. Get rid of the awful rivets. Get rid of the stupid looking plastic tailgate cover (the lock is kinda nice, tho). Get rid of that horrible looking bar for a front grill and put in some kind of billet grill top and bottom. Restyle the hood to give it a more muscular appearance. The rims and tires look good. Get rid of the horizontal lines on the tailgate. The overall lines of the truck are nice, and Nissan COULD have had the best looking compact truck with some tweeking.
Any thoughts???
The times were probably correct.That can only mean that they are only running no more then 4-5 lbs of boost.It may be a logevity precaution or they did not want to do the internal engine mods.
As far as power,I am quite content with mine.I pulled a stuck bus style motorhome out of the sand
with no problem.It works for me.
An aftermarket billet grill would be a must-have for the '01 Frontier.
Having driven all of the current Frontier and Ranger engine choices, there really is only one underpowered engine. That would be the 2.5I I4 in the Ranger. But, that will supposedly be remedied this winter with an all new 2.3L I4 putting out something like 135hp.
The rest of the engines perform well for what each was designed for.
The Nissan I4 makes for a good entry level economy engine. Just don't get it if you need to do any serious hauling or towing (which probably only makes up 1/4 or less of all truck owners). The Ranger I4 is passable when equipped with the manual. With an auto... forget about it!
The Ford 3L is a "car" type of engine. Revs build quickly, it has more than adequate accel (especially with the manual), and it's a pretty good trade-off of power vs. economy.
The Ford 4L is more of a "truck" type of engine. It sacrifices some economy for stump-pulling power, revs don't build quickly (unless you've performed a few free breathing mods like myself), and it's accel is only slightly quicker than the 3L. Where it makes up is being able to tow and haul like you've got nothing behind you.
The Nissan N/A 3.3L V6 seems to cut the middle ground between the Ford 3L and 4L. It's a good engine for buyers who want more ooomph than the 3L but don't want/need the low-tech/low-economy power of the 4L.
The new engines from Ford and Nissan seem very nearly alike. Their specs and design (aside from the N/A S/C thing) are pretty similar. I'm looking forward to driving them both this fall to see what they're like.
I haven't seen any specs yet on the psi on the S/C. Maybe they haven't got it quite figured out yet, and that's why there's these variances in the early production vehicles.
The SOHC 4.0 is a NORMALLY aspirated engine, Ford did not need to add a S/C to its engine to get some good HP/Torque out of it.. LOL!
Keep it coming, love the Ford bashing stuff. I really hit a cord here with the Nissan boys.. proving the Ranger will stomp them...
Nissan offers 2 engines while Ford offers 3 engines in the Ranger, please remember this. Along with the 3.0 costing about 300 bucks more than a 2.5...
Well Vince, whether you know it or not, Ford exists to make profits, not to feed your TORQUE Fantasies just as any other manufacturer (is that what you dream about?). Ford isn't putting in the new sohc 4.0 for free. It all about the dollars, Ford is forced to give a new engine not because you want it Vince but to compete with Chevy (which has more hp/torque than your truck), Toyota, Dodge (kinda). Since you preach how Nissan is so cash strapped, you should understand why Nissan didn't put the 3.5 the frontier. If you say they are as broke as they are, then how can you expect them to upgrade the engine with anything but a SC. What is it going to cost to upgrade to the 4.0 sohc when it becomes available? Dodge Dakota's offer four engines, it doesn't necessarily make it a better truck than a ranger (3 engines) even though they are different classes.
Vince, I guess you had no comments on the pictures I posted in post 539.
REST OF THE TOPIC (VINCE EXCLUDED)
I too am disappointed about the Frontier SC times, does anyone have any other stats like gear ratios, weight, etc...
The final product will probably better than the test models, but at least the SC model will provide a platform at the owners risk for uping boost, moding, etc.
I haven't got a clue about the 3.3L's capacity for mods. But, I don't think there's much left in the engine. It seems like it's already tweaked. The S/C is probably just a stop gap until it becomes feasible (cost-wise and production-wise) for Nissan to put the 3.5L V6 in the Frontier.
Its not HP you want in a truck!!! Its TORQUE.
When will you folks understand this??? This HP
garbage is a joke.. Any REAL truck owner who wants
a truck that can pull, haul, tow, whatever, will
first look at the HP/Torque curve..
vince,you make it easier and easier.Do you even think before you write?
OK the first question is if as you stated that hp is not wanted in a truck,why would a REAL truck owner care about the hp curve?Why bring HP into ANY of the discussion?
Considering the extent of your knowledge is limited to what you posted,let me see if I can help explain it to you.
Torque is a measure of applied force. Horsepower is a measure of work actually performed.
Let's take an example of 2 cars.
Car A has an engine applying 50,000 pound feet of torque to a load. Car B has an engine that is only applying 50 pound feet of torque. Which car is going to be faster? The torque figures are of course meaningless until we consider distance/time (RPM), in which case we're actually talking about horsepower.
If Car A's engine is moving an angular distance of 2 pie radians over a period of 1 minute (that's 1 RPM) then horsepower = Force * Distance/Time * a constant. The constant is needed because of the units involved--we have to convert from work measured in pounds/time to work measured in horsepower. The constant is (5252 ^ -1), which is roughly 0.0001904. Doing the math nets us: 50,000 pounds/foot * 1 revolution (actually 2 pie radians) / 1 minute * the constant = about 9.5 horsepower.
Now look at Car B. If the engine is moving 16,000 pie radians over a period of 1 minute (that's 8,000 RPM) then horsepower = Force * Distance/Time * a constant. Do the math: 50 pounds/foot * 8,000 revolutions / 1 minute * the constant = about 76 horsepower.
Since it takes work to accelerate a mass (move a car), then Car B will be considerably faster because it's engine can perform a lot more work.
Horsepower (not torque) determines how fast your car's going to accelerate.
Remember that torque is meaningless by itself. It only has value when taken together with RPM, but then you'd actually be talking about horsepower!
Now we will see if YOU understand it?
You still have not answered the questions in my earlier post.Is it duck and run or is it lack of knowledge?
TOO EASY.
Got Brains?
I like most of what you say, one thing though, the SC desert runner is heavier than the ranger you were comparing with, it is basically a 4x4 without the transfer case, to get a good comparison, you would have to see what it does VS the ranger trailhead. Vince, I know someone posted the frontier torque curve before, but I haven't seen it, I mentioned before that the mazda brochure has the curves for the 3.0 and 4.0 engines in it. I don't have access to a scanner or I would put it here myself. Again, I HIGHLY doubt you will see the VQ engine in the frontiers, this is Nissan's luxury engine, it was used to seperate the pathfinder from the Xterra, also the cost increase would be too great, Nissan wants to maintain the price advantage. I would not be surprised to see a new engine in the next 1-2 years with similar HP/torque ratings. Possibly Nissan's new QR engine, which is being put in the new Xtrail SUV,
which we probably won't see in the states because of competition with the Xterra, but it is a similar concept as the escape, unibody, AWD. It always seems like the best Nissans are only available overseas! Check it out at http://freshalloy.com Or I could see them beefing out the 3.3l, if you put that to a 4.0l, you would probably get in the neighborhood of the SC now. And it is a great engine, proven tough, reliable, easy to work on, no reason to throw it in the scrap bin. Funny thing about power in these trucks etc. Remember back just a couple of years ago when you would read a review on the 4runner? They would praise the powerful V6 and the performance, then with the addition of the new PF, if you look at the comments in a comparison between the two, they complain that the 4runner needs more power! Is the 4runner any slower now?, does it pull any less? does it feel any different? NO! In a couple of years you will probably see a 300hp explorer or 4runner and people will be complaining that the PF needs more power! I sold plenty of 94-95 pf's and V6 trucks back then, and I can't ever remember anyone complaining about it being underpowered, now the 3.3l has more power and torque and suddenly it is "weak". I just don't get it, does it do the job? Are the people that have them pretty happy with the performance? Seems so. For me my 4banger is all I need, I live 5 minutes away from work, who am I going to race? Maybe I cut my commute time to 4 minutes 30 seconds, it's not worth the extra money to me, I occaisionally pull aroun 3,000 lbs with my truck, it does just fine,
I may decide to buy my own boat, then I may bump up to the Xterra or Desert runner, for reasons of longevity I would prefer the 6, I would not buy the SC, just don't need it. If I want to race, I will just grab my Zcar, that's for racing my truck is for work. Just my $.02, (hey anyone wonder why there is no cent sign on the keyboards???)also check out the info on freshalloy about the new Zcar and altima, good stuff, how about a high 4's/low 5's 0-60 for less than $30,000!!
I pretty much hate the new look and am happy I got the 2000. The rivets are hideous looking to me personally. Plus I think they lowered the body a little bit (although the suspension height stays the same).
OK, let me explain this to you..
In the definition of work, time is not involved in any way. The same amount of work is done whether the task takes an hour or a year. Given enought time, even the weakest motor can lift the pyramids of Egypt. However, if we wish to perofrm a task efficiently, the rate at which work is done, becomes a very important engineering quantity.. This is why they have HP/Torque curves.. dumb....
Torque = moment of intertia x angular acceleration. A resultant torque applied to a rigid body will always result in an angular acceleration that is directly proportional to the applied torque and inversely proportional to the body's moment of inertia.
Now, you said yourself "Horsepower is = F*D/T Where the HELL do you think F comes from?? It comes from the INITIAL TORQUE applied doof!! You have to have some sort of FORCE to intailly push the truck into motion!! YOU also said that RPM's play a role in the HP and Torque game, correct once again. Yet you fail to mention that the Ranger reaches it PEAK torque before Your Frontier@! Which truck is using its HP more effeciently?? Nice try, go back to Physics... :-}
Torque - a unit of force, the tendency to produce rotation about an axis commonly expressed as "foot-pounds" for engines. The key word here is force. Torque is a measure of the engines’ ability to apply twisting force or pressure to the crankshaft; it has no element of time or movement. Torque can be multiplied or divided almost infinitely through gearing.
Horsepower - A unit of power, a rate at which work is performed. The key word here is power. Horsepower has an element of time and movement and cannot be multiplied or divided with gearing.
Whether it is a truck starting a boat trailer up a ramp or a race car going around a track, time and movement are involved, so horsepower, not torque is the correct unit.
You were correct that F is the initial torque.Torque does play a role but not the role you seem to currently want to try and shove down people's throat.It gets you started,hp keeps it going.A good exmple is on the drag strip.A car with more torque may have the advantage getting off the line and part way down the track,but in the end it is hp that prevails at the end.
Now,back to your last statement.
You said:
Yet
you fail to mention that the Ranger reaches it
PEAK torque before Your Frontier@! Which truck is
using its HP more effeciently?? Nice try, go back
to Physics... :-}
Considering we do not have the torque and hp curves at various rpms for the Ranger or Frontier,let us look at what we do have.
Ranger:160hp@4200 rpm: 225ft/lb torque@2750rpm
Frontier:170hp@4800rpm: 200ft/lb torque@2800rpm.
You are right that the Ranger reaches its peak torque at a lower rpm.At its peak torque at 2750 rpm your Ranger is putting out 117.812 hp.
At the peak torque rating of the Frontier at 2800 rpm,the Frontier is putting out 106.626 hp
You said more efficient.The Frontier is more efficient at its peak then the Ranger
The Ranger is using 73.6% of its available hp while the Frontier is using 62.7% of its available hp.
Now as you pass your peak torque rating your torque starts to drop off amd you only have 42.188 hp left to pull you through the last 1450 rpm.
The Frontier has 63.38 hp left to pull it through the last 2000 rpm.
Guess what,you eat the dust from a Frontier.While you are dropping off the Frontier is still pulling.
Who da man? Can you feel the burn?It must hurt.
By the way,still can't answer the other questions?
Got Brains?
Uh, no.
The Ranger outruns the Frontier from 0-60 and in the quarter. Even the current "weak" OHV 4L outruns the new S/C Frontier in both dashes. Plus, it'll tow more than either of them.
While you may want to take the scientific road to explain it, the simple fact is that the Ranger puts more power to the ground more efficiently than the Frontier.
I think you may be overlooking a few variables.
Even if some one built an undisputably better truck (ie better reliability, more hp/truck, and better physical appearance according to vince) for less money than his Ranger, he would still buy a FORD. FORD is his only choice FOREVER. That's what it comes down to. He's had limited ownership outside the Ford product line. We know Vince went into the Frontier test drive with a bad attitude (since he only buys Fords), and he picks every little detail up that his Ranger beats (because of this he forgot to look at the good points). I bet Vince can't even name one good point about the Frontier while I could name several about the Ranger. Simply put, Vince has an answer for everything good or bad, and if he doesn't have one, he will just make an answer that shows his arrogant, cocky, stubborn side of him.
Compare Vince to Cthompson, both happy Ford Owners. - On one hand we have a Vince who will do anything to be right, the best, etc and on the other hand we have Cthompson who makes intelligent conversations about the two vehicles in a sensible way besides gloating about how much more torque he has.
Vince has done nothing on the two boards except join in topics (this vs this) and start arguments, then duck in and out. Vince, can you show us one post where you have normal conversations about pros and cons of a vehicle? I bet not.
How can Vince tell me his views and opinions are better and worth listening to than someone who has owned both the Frontier and the Ranger (and the Ranger was bought back by Ford) and Vince hasn't even owned a Nissan.
I bet if we act as if Vince's posts aren't there he will get board of trying to piss people off. Too bad, this board doesn't have a ignore post feature.
In any case, horsepower does not exist without torque. (Torque can exist without horsepower)
I saw a good, simple explanation of torque vs. horsepower in a tech article at www.snowmobileworld.com. It stated that torque is the force that it takes to pick up a suitcase. Horsepower is the amount of times you'd be able to pick up that suitcase in a minute.
Without torque, you couldn't pick up that suitcase. Hence, you'd have no horsepower either. They're really just two different measurements about the force being applied.
On another note, did you know where the term "horsepower" came from? When engines were first built (I think steam engines), they used to rate them on how many horses they would replace turning a grinding wheel at a grain mill. Hence, the term.
Oh well, all of this "torque talk" is getting kinda boring and pointless.
Anyone thinking about purchasing either of the '01 trucks coming out?
I keep having crazy thoughts about buying a Lightning next summer after test driving one of those monsters a coupla months ago. What kills me is that I could walk into a dealership not too far from my house and talk to my previous salesman and get a good buck for my truck and the Lightning at $500 over invoice.
Somebody please talk me out of it!!! To have no debt is to be free!!!
where do you live again? I want to know why I haven't heard about them coming to Houston!
It sure would be nice to be debt free, though!
You just need to convince me that with its LSD, some snow tires, and a few hundred pounds in the bed that it'll be a good tow vehicle for taking my sleds up north during the winters. I'm still pondering that one. I guess I'll have to ask some Lightning owners how it performs in the snow and ice.
I'd only be giving up 2-3mpg, and I'd be gaining 215hp and 225ft/lbs of torque over my 4L. Holy crap! Plus, it's got a really nice cab. I love the seats.
Now, how do I convince the wife...
mmc: You're getting the sport pkg with a manual tranny right? With the 5,000 or so price difference between the upcoming 325 and 330 and only a marginal increase in performance, the 325 makes the most sense. Just imagine what Dinan will do to your car for 5 large...
I love bimmer's, but I haven't been able to justify the price for myself (yet). So, I got the next best thing, the poor man's M3, an SVT Contour.
Enjoy your new ride!
-C
I don't care that my wife can't drive a manual, either. I already told her it will be one and if she wants to drive it, she better learn
It all started when I bought my truck. She decided she liked driving it better than our Grand Am (which she picked out and I didn't like). So, I got stuck with the Grand AM. I decided that if I'm stuck with the car, then I pick it out. I bought the SVTour early last summer and traded in the Grand Am. Now that she's learned to drive the SVT, she gets mad when I want to drive it.
What'll happen if I get a Lightning? She went on the test drive with me and when she jumped all over the fun pedal, she had that same big, stupid grin on her face as I did when I drove it...
Uh-oh...
I think the only significant differences between the current 323 and 328 are the engines (2.5L I6 vs. 2.8L I6). I think for '01, they change the name of the 323 to 325 and keep the same engine. They also change the 328 to the 330 and bump the 2.8 up to 3.0 and do some other tweaks for around 235hp or so.
One car you might consider is the 330xi which is an AWD version. Don't know where you live, but it should make for a great all-season vehicle especially when equipped with some proper snow tires. I don't know if they're making a 325xi, tho.
But, for that kind of cash (probably to the tune of 35 large) I could get a Mustang GT AND a Ranger 4x4.
But, there's something about an AWD Lightning that hits the right cord...