2008 320i Auto - @#$% CAR!!

[freakazoid]

Yeah, I should have bought a 320D. I even complained to BMW SA about the car's performance. They sent one of their techies out to test drive the car. His response: "Have you driven another 320i, because your one feels like one of the more responsive ones." His advice was to not buy less then the 2.0D in both the 3 series and the X3.

When I bought in 2006, there was still the stigma attached to the BM 320D based on all the E46 failures, hence me not even considering them.

My sisters buddy traded his A4 DTM (162kw version) for a 2010 320i Sportpack. I ran into him in November last year and asked him why he did something that stupid and that the 320i is crap slow. He was miffed with me for dissing his new car. Got him at my nieces party last week and he told he had gone to test drive a 320D and a 323i because the performance of the 320i was killing him I at least suffered for 5+ years, he only lasted 5 months.

My "perfect" garage? E92 M3 for me and X5 3.0D for the wifey

 

[Spy007]

zFreakazoid. Now you know why the sales guy offerd you 25k more. He new you would be back and spend it anyway.

 

[evilsee]

I must agree with freakazoid, the 320i is the worst of the lot, I was actually considering purchasing one, that is, until I drove one. It felt and sounded like a tractor, I then decided to try the 323i and I was a lot more enthusiastic about that one. I would opt for the 323 over the 320i, its just feels more proper and more BMW-like.

Oh, I eventually ended up with a 325i, its cost more than the 320i I was initially considering, but every time I give it a bit of gas, a smile quietly to myself.

 

[BMW M]

I know I gonna get 'klapped' for the following... :mmm:

My Father-In-Law decidied to buy a 2007 325i Sport, very nice car with loads of features. The I6 on this is SOOO much smoother than the engine found in the e46... and 100x better than the 320i and 323i... But the 320d Has got more oomph, you can feel it from the moment the 325i takes off... :dunno:

Am I too spoilt with the Diesels power, and now all the others feel 'under powered'? :thinking: Seriously, the 325i sounds beautiful... :drool: And it revs SOOOO smooth... But where the rubber meets the road, the 320d feels stronger and faster. :dunno: ...

 

[AshG108]

I know I gonna get 'klapped' for the following... :mmm:

My Father-In-Law decidied to buy a 2007 325i Sport, very nice car with loads of features. The I6 on this is SOOO much smoother than the engine found in the e46... and 100x better than the 320i and 323i... But the 320d Has got more oomph, you can feel it from the moment the 325i takes off... :dunno:

Am I too spoilt with the Diesels power, and now all the others feel 'under powered'? :thinking: Seriously, the 325i sounds beautiful... :drool: And it revs SOOOO smooth... But where the rubber meets the road, the 320d feels stronger and faster. :dunno: ...

Maybe it is cause of the turbo effect compared to the N/A effect of the two engines. i was always one for a turbo car and loved to own but when i sat in my sis's 323i, it was quickish but then my bro-in-law took me for a joy ride and thats when i felt how strong the engine is even without being a tubo vehicle. i like turbo vehicles when it comes to the kick and stuff, but N/A is aso just as fun for toying around provided it has enough of the oomph you need.

i for one, have utmost repspect for the 320d, my bro-in-law's one is coming up for changing now and the car has not lost power or anything, car is reliable and brilliant power and consumption, pity the m/plan extension is pricey, but he leaning towards the 330d now or the 530d, hell even the 520d's are still quite brilliant too. BMW's diesel motors are quite good compared to the rest.

 

[Olorin]

I've got a BMW E90 2005 320i and I can sympathize with those complaining about power. I upgraded from a Corolla 140i so the increase in power (for me) was immense.

The thing is, I don't know if fellow 320i drivers are driving with AC on or not because I've found that the AC tends to suck a lot of power. I drive almost always with AC off unless I have no other choice. The difference in speed is big. With AC off the car is not slow at all. Overtaking is not a problem for me. In high pressure situations I can get away without much fuss. Again, with AC off. Not sure why it makes such a big difference to the performance but for me it's big.

I also don't get the comments about City Golf 1.6's beating a 320i. That's a load of crap. A 320i can take on a Audi 2.0L FSI. I've driven with a Merc 180 compressor and the car couldn't pull away from me in a convincing fashion. Some of the comments in this thread are over-exaggerating the truth of the matter. I also think the engine doesn't sound bad at all when revving. The car is comfortable to drive, handles very well and has decent speed with AC off.

I've been in a E90 320d and yes, the difference in performance is big but the difference in cost is big too, plus maintenance costs down the line, turbo failures....etc. There is always a compromise involved with these cars. For me, I'm happy with the performance. If I were to sell the car I most definitely wouldn't go diesel. I would go for a second hand E90 325i.

 

[Olorin]

I will add that buying a brand new 320i is pure madness, in my opinion. That's why buying second hand is the way to go. I paid R152000 for my 320i with 75000 km on the clock (with all the features ...rain sensors, park distance control etc) and extended motor plan to 2012. I'm extremely happy with this car at this price. Paying more than double the price for a brand new car with little to no features is madness.

 

[///MOS1TED]

Have to agree here and dont want to offend any of the owners/drivers.

I owned a E90 320i auto and i hated it , felt like kicking myself for ever thinking of buying it in the first place. Had it for about 6months and it honestly felt like months of hell everytime i drove it.

Also amazes me how it has that price tag and does not deliver.

:thinking:

 

[KAKA]

lol totally agreed , underpowered waste. BUT.... BMW announced a new 4 cylinder twin turbo motor.. 2.0l 180kw .. It will fit the shoe perfectly.. First to be seen in the X1.. A taste of the future..

 

[AshG108]

lol totally agreed , underpowered waste. BUT.... BMW announced a new 4 cylinder twin turbo motor.. 2.0l 180kw .. It will fit the shoe perfectly.. First to be seen in the X1.. A taste of the future..

yep and these bimmers with these new engines will be dubbed x28i's.

 

[killua]

@olorin:
I think that driving a 3-series and not using aircon is like getting married to Scarlett Johansson for the intellectual conversations .
So, if you own a 320i, enjoy the ride, not the performance, and if an oak with a citigolf wants to dice, drive off slowly and think about our climate control, because he is in a moerse hurry to get home because it is unbearably hot in there.

And your train of thought regarding the 320i that can take the 2.0 audi: that just means that the 1.6i citi will kick the audi’s ass as well. The power to weight ratio of the citi and the 320i is the same. So if all else stays the same the two should be the same until air drag comes into play where the higher power of the 320i should be dominant. But the party piece for the citi is the short gearing. So the citi will most likely win at the TLGP... But not at highways speeds. Get over it, thats the price you pay for luxury.

Talking about luxury, you say the 320i gets no features. Lets ignore for one moment the “start”. If you buy a 320i you get lots of kit. From the 2 features you brag about, one of them is actually standard. And the PDC is cheap. You will seriously have to look far to get a second hand 320i that actually has a lot more features. But I may be wrong: Maybe you got satnav, active steering, comfort access etc, then I stand corrected.

Regarding second hand 320d vs 320i, I would happily replace a turbo every 100,000km to have the same tractability as a 330i. Your fear for mechanical failure overshadows some of the logic, and is even more emphasised by the fact that your previous car was a “safe” to have reliable car. Paying 20k every 5 years really isn’t that bad. But, I have to agree on the 325i. I would have had one if my budget could stretch that far.

 

[Olorin]

A city golf 1.6 with 75 kw's (or thereabouts) will never be able to take a 320i on. No way in hell. 0-100 in a 1.6 is what ? 12 seconds ? 11 seconds at most ? It's still a 1.6l at the end of the day. Since when are city golf's so damn fast where even a 1.6 can take on a 320i or Audio A4 2.0 FSI ? That's complete madness. My car can get to 0-100 in 9s and a top speed over 220. Seriously, a city golf may weigh less than the BMW or Audi but let's not forget that there is a huge difference in power between these cars.

Mechanical failure is far more prevalent on a turbo diesel than on naturally aspirated. Although I had a Corolla before, it wasn't cheap to replace parts (when they failed). But there are reasons why people are apprehensive about buying diesels. There are other considerations like the tractor-like sound they make (no offense) which put many people off. Yes, you may have amazing traction but turbo diesels have drawbacks too, let's not forget.

 

[killua]

A city golf with 75 kw's (or thereabouts) will never be able to take a 320i. It's still a 1.6l at the end of the day. Since when are city golf's so damn fast where even a 1.6 can take on a 320i or Audio A4 2.0 FSI ? Seriously, it may weigh less but the BMW and Audi have considerably more power and torque.

Since new cars way as much as houses... Do the math:
Citi = 75KW, 1000kg => 75kw/ton
320i = 115KW, 1500kg => 76kw/ton
I have done the calculation in favor of the 320i, the citi actually weights a little less. And don't forget my comment on the gearing....
If you don't believe me, take 500kg (6 extra guys) out in your car and tell me if you can drive around and still beat guys in their 1.3i corollas. The new 1.3i corolla will stay with you if you have 500kg extra weight.

---

If you still have a hard time getting your head around it, I could provide you with mathematical proof. :thumbsup:

 

[Olorin]

You will seriously have to look far to get a second hand 320i that actually has a lot more features.

Most second hand E90's on Gumtree have a full house of features that you do not get standard. That's one of the reasons why buying second hand makes sense because all those additional features (new) will not improve resale value down the line.

---

Where did you get 1000 kg's for the City Golf ? The 320i (manual) weighs in at under 1400 kg's.

---

I don't know what statements to take seriously around here. We have someone claim that a GTI couldn't run away from his 320i, we have another person claim that a City Golf 1.6 (of all cars) could give a 320i a run for it's money (which is insane). The comparisons are very weird to say the least.

It's like the Audi 1.8t. It couldn't run away from me. It may be faster but not significantly so. The differences are not big. If you take a 2.0t then it's a different story.

 

[killua]

You will seriously have to look far to get a second hand 320i that actually has a lot more features.

Most second hand E90's on Gumtree have a full house of features that you do not get standard. That's one of the reasons why buying second hand makes sense because all those additional features (new) will not improve resale value down the line.

---

Where did you get 1000 kg's for the City Golf ? The 320i (manual) weighs in at under 1400 kg's.

---

I equalised them to make a fair comparison. The unladen wieght of the 320i is 1445kg. I only have the wieght of the citi measured by Car (citi R-line). They have 1 more person in the car than the unladen specification. So I added 50kg's to the 320i. And most sources would actually suggest the citi weights near the 800kg mark.

 

[Olorin]

If you still have a hard time getting your head around it, I could provide you with mathematical proof.

I think there is a lot more to this than your equation is letting on. You never even used the correct weight for the 320i. It's not 1500 kgs. It's 1380+, under 1400 kg's. There is no way in hell that a 1.6 is going to beat me, sorry.

As for your turbo diesel, the torque is great but the torque curve is high only at the lower end of the rev range and at higher speeds my measly 320i will take over. Funny how things work out.

 

[msm]

... and at higher speeds my measly 320i will take over. Funny how things work out.

What higher speed :thinking:

Officially, the 320d manual tops out at 235 KM/Hr while the 320i "only" manages 220 KM/Hr. Across the board tractability is superior on the 320d - so not quite sure what you're talking about.

At altitude the situation is even worse for the 320i. Yep, funny how things work out ...

 

[killua]

Olorin: "at higher speed my measly..." What have you been drinking dude :drink:. Given 2 indentical bodies, each with gearing optimized for top speed, the one with the higher power will have the better top speed. The one with the better top speed will have the better acceleration at higher speed. Torque curve has NO influince on high speed if number of gears go closer to infinity. The contrary is that the less gears you have, and power output is equal, then the car with an engine with higher AVERAGE power will be faster. In that case, a diesel engine, even when running at its power peak will still be equal or better than a NA engine of equal specific power output. I have made a nice graph for you to help explain. BLUE IS 320d, RED is 320i.
We will start at the basic torque curves:

Here you will se the fame of the "high" torque peak at low RPM for the diesel. And the mistake you make is by looking at the 320i torque curve between 5000 and 6500rpm and noting it is higher than the torque of the diesel at 5000 - 6500rpm, because the engine does not rev that high. You constantly forget gearing.
Then next graph the torque of the engine is sent through the gearboxes, each with their specific ratios (I have taken 6th gear as a comparison):

Now note that the diesel torque curve dropped, but got stretched. But because the torque is SOOOO much, the torque does not drop below that of the 320i even if needing to be stretched out through the gearing. So there is no high speed the 320i will ever be faster at.
Just to put everything in perspective, I will include the graph of the acceleration in m/s^2 for all the gear ratios. Note that there is no place where the 320i has more torque, hence acceleration, at ANY SPEED, than the 320d:

---

While I am at it:
1.6i citigolf vs 320i

EDIT: BLUE CITI, RED 320i

 

[fhm1]

... and at higher speeds my measly 320i will take over. Funny how things work out.

What higher speed :thinking:

Hey man, its written 260 on speedometer lol.. ;-)

 

[killua]

Olorin, its a bad habit to edit comments without notice or indication. I only now see you reference to the 320i doing 0-100 in 9 seconds. These figures can be terribly misleading when comparing FWD to RWD etc. Those are the fastest the manufacturer could obtain on a nice track with nice traction. They rev the car, drop or modulate the clutch etc to get the exact amount of wheel spin needed. You, on the otherhand are not willing or able to do that, so you will lose part of your RWD advantage. BTW, the citi golf specs for 0-100 are 9.5s. But pulling away with anything less than brickloads of wheelspin cancel them out...