Last post on Dec 15, 2009 at 9:06 PM
You are in the BMW 3-Series
What is this discussion about?
BMW 3 Series, BMW 5 Series, BMW M3, BMW M5, BMW 7 Series, BMW M6, Automotive News, Coupe, Convertible, Sedan, Wagon
#9 of 92 BMW 2.5 V6
Mar 23, 2007 (12:42 pm)
I recently test drove a 2003 325 BMW. I was again, as before when I've driven older/smaller 3 series BMW's, left wondering why they put such gutless engines in them for so long. It seems they didn't correct the situation until 2006, and even then only really with the 330 model. I've never had a very positive impression of BMW until I kept reading the forums here on Edmunds, mainly because all the old one's (and even a early/mid 90's model) and now even a 2000+ model, that I got to test drive were all probably the 2.5V6 or weaker models. (And the early 90's model one I drove had an auto....as did the recent test drive in the 2003.
#10 of 92 Re: BMW 2.5 V6 [andres3]
Mar 23, 2007 (1:33 pm)
I agree. Until 2006, I was not interested except for the M3. That is guts!
Now we are talking some serious power in these ELLPS.
#11 of 92 Re: BMW 2.5 V6 [circlew]
Mar 23, 2007 (1:50 pm)
Disagree. The 2003+ performance package equipped 330is would easily stand toe to toe with a a 2006 330i/2007 328i. with 0-60 in the sub 6 second range (most reports showed 5.8-5.9 seconds) and far tighter suspension, they were anything but slouches even compared to 2007 ELLPS.
#12 of 92 Re: BMW 2.5 V6 [andres3]
Mar 23, 2007 (4:19 pm)
The 2.5 liter DOHC was a fine engine back when it was introduced in 1988, for cars weighing 2800lbs or so, especially in a market place where family sedans like Camry and Accord took 10 seconds to do 0-60. The 8 second or so numbers from the E36 325i was adequate. The 25i have been non-competitve performance-wise since the day the 200hp 3.0L Accord was introduced about a decade ago. That's why I have been saying BMW's historically (in the last decade or so until the very recent years) were significantly underpowered for the amount of money they charge. The introduction of the 3.0L, especially the 255hp Si engine and then the turbo, plus the heavy discounting through leasing have transformed the bang-for-the-buck balance vis competitors quite a lot.
#13 of 92 Re: By the way... [brightness04]
Mar 23, 2007 (7:38 pm)
"Glad you agree that old generation 3's, even if M and race spec, are really no competition to today's competitive entries from the other manufacturers, even if on race tracks."
Well, I'll agree and disagree.
One look at NASA and Club racing will show that old E30's and 911's finish on the podium as often as their newer, more sophisticated cousins.
I will say that cars today are the result of a natural (unfortunate) steady "improvement" of the breed. They have aged with us - like us, they're softer, heavier, and more mature than a few years ago, yet they still cling to a part of the "inner party animal" they used to be.
Personally, I'll pass on the fillet mignon and cabernet, thank you. I want Doritos and a rum & coke.
#14 of 92 Re: BMW 2.5 V6 [brightness04]
Mar 23, 2007 (8:03 pm)
Oh yeah, the main advantage of a multi-link rear suspension vs. a semi-trailing arm suspension comes in the form of compactness, weight savings, adjustability, and ride comfort.
From a performance point of view, a properly set up e30 rear suspension will perform basically the same as an E90 rear suspension - that is, it will adjust camber with changes in suspension load to optimize tire contact with the pavement.
BTW, I didn't know BMW made a V6. On what cars does this engine appear?
#15 of 92 Re: BMW 2.5 V6 [fedlawman]
Mar 23, 2007 (8:27 pm)
He-he, I was waiting for someone to jump on that. Please note: BMW has not ever built a single production V6 engine. Not that I have any say so, however, IMHO, BMW would be extremely foolish if they ever offer a V6 at any time anywhere in the future.
#16 of 92 Re: By the way... [fedlawman]
Mar 24, 2007 (2:43 am)
Personally, I'll pass on the fillet mignon and cabernet, thank you.
I want my Cabernet and FM and eat it too. When lighter weight metals and better synthetics are integrated into the formula to get the weight under 1.5 tons in this category, I will get my wish.
For now, I will need to work out harder to keep up with the extra calories!
#17 of 92 Re: BMW 2.5 V6 [shipo]
Mar 24, 2007 (11:10 am)
Me too, I was surprised that there were many responses before the correction. Never been a BMW V6, and probably never will be. Also, they are pretty much at the max on the size of their sixes at 3.0L. Power increases from here on out will be through tuning or turbos.
#18 of 92 Re: BMW 2.5 V6 [pearl]
Mar 24, 2007 (12:17 pm)
IIRC, BMW built some wonderful 3.4 and 3.5 liter I6s back in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Yes, no?