|
|
|
|
|
|
BMW Garage | BMW Meets | Register | Today's Posts | Search |
|
BMW 3-Series (E90 E92) Forum
>
What are e90 owner's thoughts on the f30?
|
|
12-21-2012, 10:57 AM | #89 | |
Resident Diesel Junkie
56
Rep 1,070
Posts |
Quote:
There was a lot of hype a few months before the F30 launched about how it was going to be faster and more efficient than the old E90 diesel, but when the real world numbers finally rolled in it turned out it was actually slower and less efficient. And similarly equipped, it cost about the same as the diesel did too. So yeah, there's nothing in the F30 that interests me personally, not when my 3 year old car with 7 year old technology outperforms it in every way. Maybe when an F30 diesel hits US shores I'll reconsider. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2012, 11:01 AM | #90 | |
Brigadier General
194
Rep 3,780
Posts |
Quote:
The Japanese V-6 offerings basically can about equal the N20 in terms of performance, but not so much beat it. That's the point, V-6 performance and 4 cylinder economy. Funny enough, the C350 Benz barely lines up with the N20, it's C250 is comical. Reliability, well that's a bit complicated. I can point to examples of V-6's that have been less reliable than a small size turbo and vice versa. I would not own any european modern car without a warranty, so that point is mute.
__________________
'98 Dinan/RMS stage 2+(VAC cams, CES Cutring etc) '15 Buick Regal "T"(wife) '06 Saab 9-5 Combi 5mt (full suspension, LSD, clipped turbo etc) Last edited by Jamesons Viggen; 12-21-2012 at 11:06 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2012, 11:04 AM | #91 | |
Brigadier General
194
Rep 3,780
Posts |
Quote:
My worst tank ever in this car(12 dyno pulls and romping on it the rest of the tank) was 28.5. My usual average is 30-32. When I am getting to work and put it in COMFORT I average 39mpg with a bit of stop and go. I don't know, I think that is impressive.
__________________
'98 Dinan/RMS stage 2+(VAC cams, CES Cutring etc) '15 Buick Regal "T"(wife) '06 Saab 9-5 Combi 5mt (full suspension, LSD, clipped turbo etc) |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2012, 11:30 AM | #92 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,323
Posts |
Quote:
$38K is a good price for the options you got, cannot compare an E90 apple to apple because some options are not available on the E90, but a strip down E90 328i would probably have cost about mid $30K with incentives and discounts. Forget the fully loaded F30 no line with $8k in options, I would go for the fully loaded sport line with $8k in options. When we compare the new E90 vs the new F30 back in April, both cars were in the showroom. When we equipped it similarly and consider all incentives for both cars, the E90 was about $8000 cheaper. Last edited by The X Men; 12-21-2012 at 11:36 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2012, 11:43 AM | #93 | |
Brigadier General
194
Rep 3,780
Posts |
Quote:
Mid anything is not an interpretation, its grade school math. 1-10...1-4=low-6-10=high, 5=MID $43,xxx gets ROUNDED to $40k before it gets rounded to $50k :P One of the things that makes E90 vs F30 prices unfair was the E90 was at the end of it's life and they through the value package at it. I also find the early E90's for $33k a turn off. Manual seats, no folding rear seat, early cars with 16" wheels, PASS. The real price difference between the two is nowhere near $8000. '12 was $35k, '13 is $36k and the standard feature list is FAR longer on the F30. Just the fact that I have a keyless start standard and I-drive and driving modes standard, those are thing kind of things that would have added $1000's to an E90. So unless the E90 started at $28k MSRP I am not seeing an $8k price difference. Like I said, someone did an exact compare, equipment, price and year and found even though the F30 still had a couple things the E90 did not, the price increase was about $1000-1500 TOPS. You would get a fully loaded Sport? Well that's $50k+ and within $1000-1200 of the M-Sport, the small upgrades are worth it in the M-Sport. Out of a $50k purchase, M-Sport is splitting hairs. Granted, I was looking at E90's a year ago because the deals were attractive. But that doesnt diminish the F30. At the end of the F30 lifecycle deals will be there as well. This is the nature of car buying.
__________________
'98 Dinan/RMS stage 2+(VAC cams, CES Cutring etc) '15 Buick Regal "T"(wife) '06 Saab 9-5 Combi 5mt (full suspension, LSD, clipped turbo etc) Last edited by Jamesons Viggen; 12-21-2012 at 11:48 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2012, 11:44 AM | #94 | |
Resident Diesel Junkie
56
Rep 1,070
Posts |
Quote:
Out of curiosity, do you know your trip computer average speed over the course of those 30-32 mpg tanks? And is that mpg from the trip computer or hand calculated? |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2012, 11:50 AM | #95 | |
Brigadier General
194
Rep 3,780
Posts |
Quote:
When I first got the car I compared the trip computer to my actual calculations and they were quite close. My 30-32 averages typically show 40-45mph as the average speed.
__________________
'98 Dinan/RMS stage 2+(VAC cams, CES Cutring etc) '15 Buick Regal "T"(wife) '06 Saab 9-5 Combi 5mt (full suspension, LSD, clipped turbo etc) |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2012, 12:09 PM | #96 | |
171
Rep 1,397
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2012, 12:21 PM | #97 | |
Resident Diesel Junkie
56
Rep 1,070
Posts |
Quote:
Do you use the start-stop function or do you turn it off? Kind of going on a tangent here, but I'm wondering if having the start-stop enabled inflates the average speed the computer reports. That is to say, you could be in stop-n-go traffic, and the computer might show an average speed of 30 or 35 because that's the speed you're going when the car is moving and the engine's on. And in reality, your true average speed might be slower, if the computer isn't accounting for the time that the car spends stopped with the engine off. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2012, 12:33 PM | #98 | |
First Lieutenant
15
Rep 319
Posts |
Quote:
2012 BMW 328i 8 speed auto 0-60 5.6 0-100 14.7 1/4 mile 14.2 @ 98 mph FUEL ECONOMY*: EPA city/highway driving: 24/36 mpg C/D observed: 21 mpg http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ic-test-review 2012 Toyota Camry V6 Auto 0-60 5.8 0-100 14.1 1/4 mile 14.3 @ 101 mph FUEL ECONOMY: EPA city/highway driving: 21/30 mpg C/D observed: 25 mpg http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ad-test-review 2013 Honda Accord V6 auto 0-60 5.6 0-100 13.9 1/4 mile 14.1 @ 101 mph FUEL ECONOMY: EPA city/highway driving: 21/34 mpg C/D observed: 23 mpg http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...-6-test-review What is so special about the N20 vs the V6's in terms of straight line acceleration and fuel economy? After 0-60 (FWD) the Camry and Accord have an edge on the 328i, look at trap speed for all three and here is the kicker, look at the observed fuel economy. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2012, 12:34 PM | #99 |
Brigadier General
194
Rep 3,780
Posts |
Not even.
The V-6 Accords and Camry's are quick mind you(within a tenth or two in most measurements), but NOT faster than reported times for the 328. It should not be news. F30 328 is about 3450lbs, 240whp/240tq(270ish crank). Accord/Camry is 270'ish hp at the crank and also 3400-3500lbs. So why wouldn't the straightline numbers be close?
__________________
'98 Dinan/RMS stage 2+(VAC cams, CES Cutring etc) '15 Buick Regal "T"(wife) '06 Saab 9-5 Combi 5mt (full suspension, LSD, clipped turbo etc) |
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2012, 12:41 PM | #100 | |
Brigadier General
194
Rep 3,780
Posts |
Quote:
Yay, magazine racing! In your examples, the F30 is faster than the Camry in 0-60 and 1/4, but the Camry traps higher. So that is not a win. The Accord matches the 0-60, but is quicker in the 1/4 and trap. The amount faster or not when compared to the MPG advantage of the N20 F30 still holds true. Performance is within a fraction of a percent yet MPG is 10-20% better in the N20. Once again, V-6 performance with 4 cylinder economy. That's the point! But 5.6 to 60 for the F30 and 14.2 is also the slowest numbers I have seen for an F30. I can find 5.4 to go and faster than a 14.2. I am just now seeing the Accord and Camry as being FASTER. Here you go, a nice SILLY 13.9 at 99.5mpg for the F30, magazine racing is fun like that. I can dig up more silly examples of 5.4 to 60 as well. Outside of magazines, here are BMS' testing numbers. So this thread about E90 vs F30 is now all about Accords and Camrys being faster in a straight line. Yet the F30 is quite a bit faster than the E90 in a straight line. So your Accords and Camrys being faster than the F30, what are you saying about the E90 again?
__________________
'98 Dinan/RMS stage 2+(VAC cams, CES Cutring etc) '15 Buick Regal "T"(wife) '06 Saab 9-5 Combi 5mt (full suspension, LSD, clipped turbo etc) |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2012, 12:43 PM | #101 | |
First Lieutenant
15
Rep 319
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2012, 12:47 PM | #102 |
Brigadier General
194
Rep 3,780
Posts |
You showed me the Accord in one magazine has the same 0-60 as your source for the F30, it was faster in the 1/4 and trap.
I showed sources that show the opposite. Don't see where that leaves us with the V-6's being FASTER than the N20, and again offering similar efficiency. The Jap V-6's that are truly faster are the IS350 and G37, both which are 13.5-13.8 at more like 102mph.
__________________
'98 Dinan/RMS stage 2+(VAC cams, CES Cutring etc) '15 Buick Regal "T"(wife) '06 Saab 9-5 Combi 5mt (full suspension, LSD, clipped turbo etc) |
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2012, 12:48 PM | #103 |
Private
0
Rep 84
Posts |
I havent driven an F30 (E92 owner) and from the sounds of it I'll probably just hold on to my E92 until something better comes along.
What people are saying about new BMWs is that they lack active feedback in the steering and just feels disconnected. We'll see what they do with the new 4 but its starting to sound like if you want a legitimate sports sedan out of BMW you'll need to buy something with an M badge. |
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2012, 12:51 PM | #104 | |
Second Lieutenant
32
Rep 290
Posts
Drives: E92 335i
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
|
Quote:
Then when people drank an entire can they preferred old (Classic) Coke. Some people think Coca-Cola did it for publicity. They're not that clever. It was actually one of the biggest and most costly product blunders ever made by a major American corporation. BMW -used- to be about designing a car that would reveal itself to you as superior after you drove it for a significant amount of time. Especially for American drivers used to big heavy floaty boat-cars. I've got a base level F30 328i as a loaner today. No sport package . I should hopefully be back in my E92 335i 6MT tonight. A good A-B-A test. So far I can report initial impressions: F30 is the same exact size as my E39 Steering is WAY too light and dead of feel Non-sport suspension is comfortable on bad roads but way soft and lets the car "float" which I think is so un-BMW-like N20 engine has decent power and good fuel economy but feels slow compared to N54 and sounds like a Diesel when idling ZF 8spd Auto is the best auto I have ever driven. I like the stick-style shifter. But I still find myself letting it be in "auto" mode and rarely using the manual shift, just like in my girlfriends VW Jetta 2.0T DSG (neither car has shift paddles). What I don't like is that it's too clever. I had a frustrating minute trying to get it in gear before I realized that if the door is just slightly ajar, it won't go into gear. -seriously?- You engineers mean to tell me that there is no reason ever that one might want to creep the car forward with the door open? While this was happening (I'm trying to get into my storage unit) there is a strange guy coming up behind me. He wasn't a threat, but what if he was? I can't get my damn car in gear to get the hell away? What if I'm a woman or other person who doesn't think so logically when a potential threat is approaching. Because the door is not perfectly shut the car won't move forward??? What if a freaking dump truck with bad brakes is coming up behind the car? I don't want my car dumbed down to protect the stupid from themselves. Thank the car god I have a manual E92!
__________________
For Sale: 2009 335i 6MT (E92/N54), Sport / M-Technic / no iDrive / Black Sapphire / Black Dakota Leather, ZCW, 6FL, PDC, 19" VMR VB3, Pilot Super Sport, M3 control arms + tension links (fr) S. California Last edited by NoTempoLimitN54; 12-21-2012 at 08:25 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2012, 12:54 PM | #105 | |
First Lieutenant
15
Rep 319
Posts |
Quote:
Accord V6 Coupe manual 0-60 5.6 0-100 13.4 1/4 mile 14.0 @ 103 mph http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...al-test-review F30 328i manual 0-60 5.6 0-100 14.3 1/4 mile 14.3 @ 100 mph http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ad-test-review F30 335i manual 0-60 5.3 0-100 13.0 1/4 mile 13.8 @ 103 mph |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2012, 12:57 PM | #106 | |
Brigadier General
194
Rep 3,780
Posts |
Quote:
I bolded some things you said. Now please, see again some things I said in post #52: Many people are getting loaner F30's that are either base models or oddly optioned. This does not do much for the F30's case. I have had base non I drive E90's, that was not a fair way to judge them either. On the fence about the F30? That's normal as every new 3 series seems to do that. BUT. Drive the one closest to what you drive now. If you have an Sport suspension E90, only drive a Sport or M-Sport F30. If you have an N54/N55 E90, don't drive an N20 F30. Have summer tires, well don't go and drive an all season equipped car-BMW is trumping the MPG's of these cars and that's due to the super low rolling resistance tires that give horrible braking. The M-Sports have much grippier(higher dusting) pads and summer tires on staggered wheels as an option. Also make sure you select Sport or Sport+ on the drive. Then at least you are fairly judging if the F30 is worth owning.
__________________
'98 Dinan/RMS stage 2+(VAC cams, CES Cutring etc) '15 Buick Regal "T"(wife) '06 Saab 9-5 Combi 5mt (full suspension, LSD, clipped turbo etc) |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2012, 12:58 PM | #107 | |
Major General
1677
Rep 6,596
Posts |
Quote:
For $32k in 2005, you could only get the accord V6 that was NOT as fast as the 325 and the handling/steering of the 325 was BMW-like. A small, but noticeable difference... |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2012, 01:02 PM | #108 | |
Brigadier General
194
Rep 3,780
Posts |
Quote:
I am also only going by EPA data where the F30 is 10% better than the V-6 examples you gave. We are still getting away from the E90 and F30 scenario, the more we are talking about new V-6 japanese cars being faster, the more it seems we are glazing over that the case is even more severe when the E90 is brought back into this. Granted, I have yet to see N55 F30's be faster than E90 N55/N54 cars, that is a legitimate talking point. But the fact is 328 to 328, the F30 does a lot right in terms of power/performance/economy. I have spent weeks dealing with Rogue Engineering who said in the past they would not develop parts for the base 3 series, but the N20 F30 is different as they see lots of tuning potential. Other tuners are looking at it the same way.
__________________
'98 Dinan/RMS stage 2+(VAC cams, CES Cutring etc) '15 Buick Regal "T"(wife) '06 Saab 9-5 Combi 5mt (full suspension, LSD, clipped turbo etc) Last edited by Jamesons Viggen; 12-21-2012 at 01:08 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2012, 01:03 PM | #109 |
Major General
1677
Rep 6,596
Posts |
I am not sure why the mainstreem Japanese don't go that way, however, the Accord V6 is more (or similar) economical and faster than this small Turbo. Oh, and cheaper and more reliable, too...
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2012, 01:05 PM | #110 | |
Brigadier General
194
Rep 3,780
Posts |
Quote:
Again, not seeing your math add up.
__________________
'98 Dinan/RMS stage 2+(VAC cams, CES Cutring etc) '15 Buick Regal "T"(wife) '06 Saab 9-5 Combi 5mt (full suspension, LSD, clipped turbo etc) |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Bookmarks |
|
|