[Desert_Fox]

Originally Posted by CaliBear1

Just another data point to support my decision to go with the last of the Mohicans: a 2013 335is cabriolet! I wonder if the 335is cab, with its N54 engine, will retain even more of its value given the general criticism of the F30-32 platform.

I gave serious thought to a Tesla S, but I want to see Musk and Co. work out the kinks and expand the charging station infrastructure and network before committing to it.

Ship with my ride arrives in Manzanillo, Mexico tomorrow. That puts it 10 days out from Port Hueneme and probably a further week from my NorCal dealership. This will be a LONG two-three weeks!

Hey there! I believe my 335is convertible is on that ship as well. I definitely agree with the last of the mohicans statement, the e9x platform is absolutely wonderful. What are the specs for your car coming in?

In regards to an E90 328i vs an F30 328i, I think I prefer the F30. I have driven both a decent amount from loaner cars at my dealer, and the turbo'd 4 cylinder in the new 328i is appreciated. That being said, i'd take an e90 335i over an f30 335i any day of the week. E90 I feel is the better looking and better driving car.

[Benstuck]

I have noticed that a good majority of owner's reviews of the F30's have always been the cheap, no-option loaner cars, which you cannot compare to a full spec'd out E9X like mines. Hence, some of the reviews can be misleading.

[CaliBear1]

Do we call you Rommel? :-)

Way to go on the e93 335is!

As a Cal grad, there's NO WAY I could get a car featuring the colors of my alma mater's arch-rival, Stanfraud. But for you, I'm sure it absolutely rocks!

Mine's Le Mans Blue, oyster/black leather, HK sound, comfort pkg, cold weather package (San Francisco "summers" are COLD!) and BMW Apps.

Other than the "horrific" color scheme you chose, our rides are quite similarly equipped. It looks like you passed on iDrive/nav package. I did too, as I have never liked the second hump on the dash for the nav in the e9x series. Was that your rationale? I'll just use my smart phone for nav purposes. I also bailed on the premium pkg. I don't need lumbar support and didn't think I could justify $1k for a garage door opener when I already have a pretty unobtrusive garage door opener and don't have multiple garages. Besides, my vacation home, when it comes, will be on an island and the Bimmer will not be making the drive to take advantage of the premium package.

Home stretch, brother, home stretch!!!

[Desert_Fox]

Originally Posted by CaliBear1

Do we call you Rommel? :-)

Way to go on the e93 335is!

As a Cal grad, there's NO WAY I could get a car featuring the colors of my alma mater's arch-rival, Stanfraud. But for you, I'm sure it absolutely rocks!

Mine's Le Mans Blue, oyster/black leather, HK sound, comfort pkg, cold weather package (San Francisco "summers" are COLD!) and BMW Apps.

Other than the "horrific" color scheme you chose, our rides are quite similarly equipped. It looks like you passed on iDrive/nav package. I did too, as I have never liked the second hump on the dash for the nav in the e9x series. Was that your rationale? I'll just use my smart phone for nav purposes. I also bailed on the premium pkg. I don't need lumbar support and didn't think I could justify $1k for a garage door opener when I already have a pretty unobtrusive garage door opener and don't have multiple garages. Besides, my vacation home, when it comes, will be on an island and the Bimmer will not be making the drive to take advantage of the premium package.

Home stretch, brother, home stretch!!!

Rommel was a good guy it seems. My dad got to meet his son when he was the mayor of Stuttgart during the 90's. I picked the name because it has been my username on the internet for as long as I can remember, always was a history buff as a kid.

Ha, well im too far south in California to have the CAL/Stanford rivalries so your car color isn't as deeply rooted here. Maybe if you had a black on grey e93 adorned with Raiders logos the Chargers fans might key your car... Your Le Mans Blue with Oyster is going to be one of the classiest cars on this forum. Please post pictures when it arrives, If I had to pick another interior color than coral it would be oyster.

To be honest, I did order Nav and that was a mistake on my part for not putting it in the signature. I travel often and im personally a fan of the idrive system and its ability to access all sorts of data on the car. I completely understand why people opt out of it though, first thing that will look dated on these beauties in the long run. I opted for the heated seats because my favorite thing to do is go on night runs with the top down. There are some beautiful back country roads in San Diego, and during the winter it can get in the 30's. I've never seen the BMW Apps before so im curious how it works, it seems like a cool feature.

[i dunno]

the problem with the comparison between the e9x and f30 is that most prospective bmw buyers won't care about the interior quality and dumbed down driving dynamics. they see new bmw, they buy new bmw. if bmw took a corolla and slapped a bimmer badge on it, it'll still sell like hotcakes.

[CaliBear1]

Thanks.

If my job depended on driving I would probably have added the nav despite my aesthetic concerns.

I'm a history buff too. I realize now that referencing him could have stirred some powerful negative memories. However, he was regular Wermacht and, more importantly, conspired to kill Hitler. Anyone who participated in one of the plots to off that monster gained at least a measure of redemption in my book.

Cheers,

CaliBear1

[Amini77]

I personally think if moded right, the f30 is really good looking car. But BMW has lost it in terms of handeling with that car...The e9X was really a transition for the worse for BMW, meaning they could have gone 2 ways, gone back to their roots with the 3 series, like the E46 (perfect BMW), or totally ruin it (F30) but that's juts my opinion. Anyways E90

[sle39lvr]

I asked about this comparison before on here:
http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/sho...391&highlight=

I love how the F30 looks and F32 coupe. I just can't take that interior seriously. Just the design is neither here or there. Worst of all, they use tacky hard plastic on the center console. I think that's a big mistake from BMW.

[///Macht]

In my mind, the only F30 that's worth it's weight is one that is fully loaded with the M-Sport package. Everything else just looks bland in comparison to the E9X platform. Even without M-Sport, I enjoy looking at just about any E9X. I can't say that about the F30. My interior color is a two-tone black on terracotta, and it feels both sporty and classy at the same time. I didn't feel that way when I had an F30 loaner. I have every option under the sun sans park distance control, and I have to say I adore the E9X interior. It's fantastic. The F30 felt rushed, and it felt cheap.

[NoTempoLimitN54]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

...At steady speed turbos don't help much with MPGs (except the motor displacement is usually smaller allowing less use of fuel)...

According to a tech paper I read written by BMW engineers for publication in the SAE Journal, the turbos -do- increase fuel economy by reducing pumping losses. In other words, some of the exhaust energy is recycled "pushing" the air into the cylinders during the intake stroke.

Think about it: Even if the car is at part throttle and there is a vacuum behind the throttle, if the intake pressure is above atmospheric, less energy from the pistons is needed to draw the air past the throttle.

I would say the above is true only when comparing NA vs. Turbo engines of the same HP output. For example, the M62TU vs. the N54.

Another advantage of turbos in a state (like the P.R. of California) where you can only readily get 91 octane gasoline, is that turbo engines respond with a pronounced octane effect to even small increases in ethanol content of fuel. So adding 1 gallon E85 to a tank of fuel (E92) increases octane by one point for the same or less cost as premium fuel. That one gallon of E85 raises the ethanol of CA gas from 5.7% to about 10% which is still approved for our engines.

We have race gas here in CA (100 AKI), but it's harder to find than E85, costs $9-10/gal, and it takes almost twice as much of it to boost the octane a point.

[accel]

Originally Posted by ///Macht

In my mind, the only F30 that's worth it's weight is one that is fully loaded with the M-Sport package. Everything else just looks bland in comparison to the E9X platform. Even without M-Sport, I enjoy looking at just about any E9X. I can't say that about the F30. My interior color is a two-tone black on terracotta, and it feels both sporty and classy at the same time. I didn't feel that way when I had an F30 loaner. I have every option under the sun sans park distance control, and I have to say I adore the E9X interior. It's fantastic. The F30 felt rushed, and it felt cheap.

I've driven such f30 335i. I couldn't care less regarding amenities, but until sport button was pressed the car felt like corolla, literally.

But then I liked f30's shifter more... And accelerator pedal sensitivity was better.

[boyce89976]

Originally Posted by NoTempoLimitN54

According to a tech paper I read written by BMW engineers for publication in the SAE Journal, the turbos -do- increase fuel economy by reducing pumping losses. In other words, some of the exhaust energy is recycled "pushing" the air into the cylinders during the intake stroke.

Think about it: Even if the car is at part throttle and there is a vacuum behind the throttle, if the intake pressure is above atmospheric, less energy from the pistons is needed to draw the air past the throttle.

I would say the above is true only when comparing NA vs. Turbo engines of the same HP output. For example, the M62TU vs. the N54.

Another advantage of turbos in a state (like the P.R. of California) where you can only readily get 91 octane gasoline, is that turbo engines respond with a pronounced octane effect to even small increases in ethanol content of fuel. So adding 1 gallon E85 to a tank of fuel (E92) increases octane by one point for the same or less cost as premium fuel. That one gallon of E85 raises the ethanol of CA gas from 5.7% to about 10% which is still approved for our engines.

We have race gas here in CA (100 AKI), but it's harder to find than E85, costs $9-10/gal, and it takes almost twice as much of it to boost the octane a point.

This is a little off-topic, so if it needs to be moved to another/different thread, please advise.

NoTempo, you are obviously very knowledgeable about cars, but your comment regarding E85 is confusing for me. I have the understanding that Ethanol is bad for our engines, especially the seals and things like that. Are you saying that you are willing to trade off the negative effects of Ethanol for a higher octane? And if, so, is there any advantage adding a gallon of E85 to 93 octane fuel? Do you prefer this mixture to non-Ethanol fuel (which I have access to at a couple different stations for a price premium)?

[ttribe]

Originally Posted by norsairius

Hmm.... well, I was out looking for this issue of R&T that this article is in, but couldn't find it at Barnes and Noble. Is it an older issue or a new one? Maybe I just missed it? What month?

My copy with this article in it just arrived in the mail yesterday.

[cdgatti]

Is it July or August issue?

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by NoTempoLimitN54

According to a tech paper I read written by BMW engineers for publication in the SAE Journal, the turbos -do- increase fuel economy by reducing pumping losses. In other words, some of the exhaust energy is recycled "pushing" the air into the cylinders during the intake stroke.

Think about it: Even if the car is at part throttle and there is a vacuum behind the throttle, if the intake pressure is above atmospheric, less energy from the pistons is needed to draw the air past the throttle.

I would say the above is true only when comparing NA vs. Turbo engines of the same HP output. For example, the M62TU vs. the N54.

Another advantage of turbos in a state (like the P.R. of California) where you can only readily get 91 octane gasoline, is that turbo engines respond with a pronounced octane effect to even small increases in ethanol content of fuel. So adding 1 gallon E85 to a tank of fuel (E92) increases octane by one point for the same or less cost as premium fuel. That one gallon of E85 raises the ethanol of CA gas from 5.7% to about 10% which is still approved for our engines.

We have race gas here in CA (100 AKI), but it's harder to find than E85, costs $9-10/gal, and it takes almost twice as much of it to boost the octane a point.

I'll have to dig up that paper on the SAE site to read. But I would say there are also pumping losses on the exhaust side by needing to push the turbo as well; the laws of thermodynamics say you can't gain free energy. I still think it has most to do with comparative HP ratings vs. engine size. I'd rather lose a few MPGs and gain the reliability of a NA motor. Like I said, having to pay for turbo replacement costs that are more than the fuel savings gain is a net loss in my book.

[AzureHaze]

Originally Posted by boyce89976

This is a little off-topic, so if it needs to be moved to another/different thread, please advise.

Little off-topic? I almost fell asleep reading that. No offense NoTempo.

[tony20009]

I don't think there's much wrong with either car. I like them both and have bought both models for my kids: an E91 for my daughter and an F30 for my son. I prefer to drive the E9x cars because the way I sit in the driver's seat, my knee rests against the door pull on the F30 and it begins to hurt after a bit. Overall, I think the cars are about equal as far as their capability to perform goes, at least insofar as driving on public roads is concerned. I like the extra space in the rear seat area of the F30, but there's certainly enough space in the E9x cars, and more space is just that. It is what it is.

I, like the R&T writer, prefer the E9x interior, but again, both cars are nice places to sit. I just think the feel of the stuff one touches in the E9x cars is a bit more solid and there's no denying that there is less hard plastic feel in the E9x cars. And, there's no way round the better fuel economy of the F30, and that can be a huge plus for some folks. For mostly city drivers like me, it isn't a big enough difference to warrant a switch to the F30, however.

Some folks like Granny Smith apples and others like Red Delicious. Both are good for you.

[i dunno]

Originally Posted by tony20009

I don't think there's much wrong with either car. I like them both and have bought both models for my kids: an E91 for my daughter and an F30 for my son.

wow you must really like your kids

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by i dunno

wow you must really like your kids

I like my kids about as much as any other loving parent does. I may have more disposable income to spend on them than some other parents, but I'm sure I have no more affection for my kids than those folks do for theirs.

[boyce89976]

Originally Posted by tony20009

I like my kids about as much as any other loving parent does. I may have more disposable income to spend on them than some other parents, but I'm sure I have no more affection for my kids than those folks do for theirs.

Well said.

Maybe he should have said, "wow, you must like to spend disposable income on your kids"

I know what you mean, mine are not yet of driving age, but when they are, I'm thinking about used, manual tranny Z4's... can't text if they have to change gears, and can only get one other teenager in the car with them, so fewer distractions while driving.

[i dunno]

yea well I don't have kids, but no matter how rich I become, I wouldn't think about giving them a bmw. here's a manual civic. take it or leave it.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by boyce89976

Well said.

Maybe he should have said, "wow, you must like to spend disposable income on your kids"

TY....

Originally Posted by boyce89976

I know what you mean, mine are not yet of driving age, but when they are, I'm thinking about used, manual tranny Z4's... can't text if they have to change gears, and can only get one other teenager in the car with them, so fewer distractions while driving.

Even now, my phone supports voice recognition texting. I'm sure by the time your kids reach driving age cars will also have that feature, unless, of course, we are talking about next month or something like that.

Even so, the limits of what young folks think they can do safely can be measured only by the extent to which they also think they are immortal and omniscient. Like most teens and young adults, I was a god once, so probably were you. Would that we could be deities again, even if only briefly before we fade from this life.

The idea of a two-seater will no doubt help cut down on the distractions. I just wonder too if driving in a roadster won't be just a bit to much fun, which itself can be an issue at a young age. Only you know will know; you know your kids, I don't. Mine are pretty level headed, and so they wouldn't have liked a Z4 for it's not practical enough for either of them.

I gave my daughter an E91. She loves it!!! She and her friends go all over the place in it, but then she's at college. What I'd forgotten is that folks her age think nothing of driving what I consider a long way to do nothing of much consequence. She's at school in Ithaca and at the drop of hat, she'll haul off to visit friends in school in Hanover, NH, NYC, Boston, MA, Williamstown, MA, and other towns and cities in the Northeast. She's maintaining a 3.9 though, so I really can't say much it for she's doing what she's supposed to be doing also.

All the best.