[Fundguy1]

Yeah. Mines a 335i. I don't see why people think the 328 will last longer. Same stuff. It's built to handle more power than you can bolt on. I drive mine like I stole it daily and 223,000 later still goes great no problems.

[AtlasDoc]

My '07 335i is at 197k right now. I bought the car in 2011 with 72k on it. It just got new stock turbos last week. Other than that, I've replaced two water pumps, two t-stats, a radiator, a coolant expansion tank, one rear wheel bearing, and a starter. The car has been tuned since about 88k and catless down pipes since 150k. It's also had a walnut blast, VCG, OFHG, and three spark plug set replacements. I just installed a VRSF cp and Tial bov about 1 month ago along with Bilstein suspension and GC camber plates. I also had the VTT inlets installed with the new turbos. Still makes me giddy when I drive it!

[driverman]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

Yeah. Mines a 335i. I don't see why people think the 328 will last longer. Same stuff. It's built to handle more power than you can bolt on. I drive mine like I stole it daily and 223,000 later still goes great no problems.

First, Consumer Reports shows less problems with the NA E9x than forced induction and its been that way for years. Second, the N54 had lots of HPFP problems that left lots of people stranded. Third, turbo engines are generally more complicated that NA engines. Fourth, turbo engines generate a lot more heat.

I'm not saying it isn't worth it. N54/N55 performance is much better. My car has a lot more problems than most Japanese cars. And it's costing more than twice as much per year as my wife's Honda. But it's worth it to me.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by driverman

First, Consumer Reports shows less problems with the NA E9x than forced induction and its been that way for years. Second, the N54 had lots of HPFP problems that left lots of people stranded. Third, turbo engines are generally more complicated that NA engines. Fourth, turbo engines generate a lot more heat.

I'm not saying it isn't worth it. N54/N55 performance is much better. My car has a lot more problems than most Japanese cars. And it's costing more than twice as much per year as my wife's Honda. But it's worth it to me.

First consumer reports is good for one thing. Papering the bottom of bird cages. Always has been. They only look at frequency of repairs, what system. Not why and what manufacturer has done to correct the siuation or how expensive or serious it is. Their more frequent problems stem from two things covered by warranty. Waste gates and hpfp, both of which were reengineered to be just as good as the rest of the car.

Second, nobody, none was stranded by the old hpfp. You hot limp mode. I know. I had 5 before I got the redesigned one.

Third And? Complicated doesn't mean less reliable. Not much different from a 328 except you get the turbo and oil cooler and hpfp. Are you implying a simple 1980 Chevy 350 which is less complicated is more reliable?

Forth the heat is controlled by these two things called a radiator and an oil cooler. At running temp it's the same.

As far as cost or problems I'm at 223,000 and haven't had any best described forementioned warranty stuff.

[galahad05]

A stock or lightl/medium modded N54/N55 engine should last a LOOOOONG time. Stock turbos, maybe go a bit early if you run them boosting harder.

[driverman]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

First consumer reports is good for one thing. Papering the bottom of bird cages. Their more frequent problems stem from two things covered by warranty. Waste gates and hpfp, both of which were reengineered to be just as good as the rest of the car.

Second, nobody, none was stranded by the old hpfp. You hot limp mode. I know. I had 5 before I got the redesigned one.

Third And? Complicated doesn't mean less reliable. Not much different from a 328 except you get the turbo and oil cooler and hpfp. Are you implying a simple 1980 Chevy 350 which is less complicated is more reliable?

Forth the heat is controlled by these two things called a radiator and an oil cooler. At running temp it's the same.

As far as cost or problems I'm at 223,000 and haven't had any best described forementioned warranty stuff.

Let's continue if we keep it friendly.

First - I disagree. CR is a great resource. I've following their reliability ratings for many years and they are generally pretty accurate.
Second - Maybe stranded isn't typical but how many N51/N52 owners have had to deal with limp mode 5 times?
Third - Complicated GENERALLY means less reliable. I'm an engineer and have dealt with the effects of complexity for decades. It takes more time to test and debug complicated solutions. It can be done (like in the space program) but it's so expensive and time consuming that almost all manufacturers let the customers be the guinea pigs the first few years.
Fourth - More heat can be dealt with by the cooling systems but it requires more engineering, more testing and more fixes. BMW added an oil cooler in the first few years of the N54, didn't they?

Even if you disregard all of that, you can't disregard that BMW's specialty has been NA I6s for decades. They are good at building them. The N54 was a much newer design so it was bound to have more problems in the beginning. And it did. I'm sure BMW will come close to perfecting their turbo engines at some point (if they already haven't done it) because they are betting the farm on them and they'll keep improving them as they learn more. This is good news for all of us.

Let's see what others have to say, like BMW service writers and technicians. I've asked many of them over the years and have always gotten the same answer - NA I6 have less problems than turbo models.

[tlow98]

Originally Posted by driverman

Let's continue if we keep it friendly.

First - I disagree. CR is a great resource. I've following their reliability ratings for many years and they are generally pretty accurate.
Second - Maybe stranded isn't typical but how many N51/N52 owners have had to deal with limp mode 5 times?
Third - Complicated GENERALLY means less reliable. I'm an engineer and have dealt with the effects of complexity for decades. It takes more time to test and debug complicated solutions. It can be done (like in the space program) but it's so expensive and time consuming that almost all manufacturers let the customers be the guinea pigs the first few years.
Fourth - More heat can be dealt with by the cooling systems but it requires more engineering, more testing and more fixes. BMW added an oil cooler in the first few years of the N54, didn't they?

Even if you disregard all of that, you can't disregard that BMW's specialty has been NA I6s for decades. They are good at building them. The N54 was a much newer design so it was bound to have more problems in the beginning. And it did. I'm sure BMW will come close to perfecting their turbo engines at some point (if they already haven't done it) because they are betting the farm on them and they'll keep improving them as they learn more. This is good news for all of us.

Let's see what others have to say, like BMW service writers and technicians. I've asked many of them over the years and have always gotten the same answer - NA I6 have less problems than turbo models.

Agreed. It's a simpler machine.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by driverman

Let's continue if we keep it friendly.

First - I disagree. CR is a great resource. I've following their reliability ratings for many years and they are generally pretty accurate.
Second - Maybe stranded isn't typical but how many N51/N52 owners have had to deal with limp mode 5 times?
Third - Complicated GENERALLY means less reliable. I'm an engineer and have dealt with the effects of complexity for decades. It takes more time to test and debug complicated solutions. It can be done (like in the space program) but it's so expensive and time consuming that almost all manufacturers let the customers be the guinea pigs the first few years.
Fourth - More heat can be dealt with by the cooling systems but it requires more engineering, more testing and more fixes. BMW added an oil cooler in the first few years of the N54, didn't they?

Even if you disregard all of that, you can't disregard that BMW's specialty has been NA I6s for decades. They are good at building them. The N54 was a much newer design so it was bound to have more problems in the beginning. And it did. I'm sure BMW will come close to perfecting their turbo engines at some point (if they already haven't done it) because they are betting the farm on them and they'll keep improving them as they learn more. This is good news for all of us.

Let's see what others have to say, like BMW service writers and technicians. I've asked many of them over the years and have always gotten the same answer - NA I6 have less problems than turbo models.

Sure friendly is good.
First every car I've gotten has been rated poorly by consumer reports. My g35 was terrible rated because bad batch of brake rotors. Dealer replaced then free, full brake jobs, for the whole time I had the car. Nobody had other problems including me on my g35 board. I had it 155,000 miles with zero issues.
Same with a 2005 armada. Same brake rotor issues. Same poor report. Same outcome. 95000 miles.

Prior to that I had a 1987 mustang gt 5.0 new. Poorly rated it never had any issues nor do I know anyone who had any. Issues. Car was a beast and bullet proof.

All my friends had Hondas and Toyota in college. All were rated highly. All had issues. Mostly prematurely blowing timing belts and blown cv joints. None of them worked well.

Second, I went into limp mode twice. Turned off car, no limp mode. Go it replaced. Should have been once but I drove 100,000 miles in 2 years before the redesigned the pump. That's my fault not BMW. BMW would have replaced it once for a normal driver. They failed because the government shoved ethanol in our tanks and they weren't designed for ethanol so it ate the seals.
Third. As for the turbos there's only 3 main differences in engine complexity. The turbos, which original waste gates were leaky. BMW fixed, oil cooler, and hpfp (see above) the rest is identical.
Four. Oil cooler was added a few months into first year of 6 year run. It was a new car. 328 wasn't first year production that year so the bugs were out of it. They needed real life driving like any other first year car to uncover the problems. Oil heat, hpfp, waste gates. All were fixed and after its identical reliability to a 328. The engine is the 328 with a turbo stuck on it for all intents and purposes.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

Sure friendly is good.
First every car I've gotten has been rated poorly by consumer reports. My g35 was terrible rated because bad batch of brake rotors. Dealer replaced then free, full brake jobs, for the whole time I had the car. Nobody had other problems including me on my g35 board. I had it 155,000 miles with zero issues.
Same with a 2005 armada. Same brake rotor issues. Same poor report. Same outcome. 95000 miles.

Prior to that I had a 1987 mustang gt 5.0 new. Poorly rated it never had any issues nor do I know anyone who had any. Issues. Car was a beast and bullet proof.

All my friends had Hondas and Toyota in college. All were rated highly. All had issues. Mostly prematurely blowing timing belts and blown cv joints. None of them worked well.

Second, I went into limp mode twice. Turned off car, no limp mode. Go it replaced. Should have been once but I drove 100,000 miles in 2 years before the redesigned the pump. That's my fault not BMW. BMW would have replaced it once for a normal driver. They failed because the government shoved ethanol in our tanks and they weren't designed for ethanol so it ate the seals.
Third. As for the turbos there's only 3 main differences in engine complexity. The turbos, which original waste gates were leaky. BMW fixed, oil cooler, and hpfp (see above) the rest is identical.
Four. Oil cooler was added a few months into first year of 6 year run. It was a new car. 328 wasn't first year production that year so the bugs were out of it. They needed real life driving like any other first year car to uncover the problems. Oil heat, hpfp, waste gates. All were fixed and after its identical reliability to a 328. The engine is the 328 with a turbo stuck on it for all intents and purposes.

I'd like to make a few comments here (it is my thread after all ). The N52 and N54 are entirely different engines. They have different blocks different heads, different internals, and have different valve train, intake and exhaust systems. Being a BMW in-line 6 is all they really have in common. But your experience and my experience with them shows they both can easily hit 200,000 miles let alone 300K. I like the N52 so much I bought a 2nd one on purpose, that it sits in 2008 Z4 is just a bonus.

I agree with you consumer reports... rubbish. Pretty much every car I've owned they've considered poorly, but I've got great use out of all of them. The Acura Integra I had (CR rated it highly) ate left-side halfshafts (I replaced three over the 230,000 mile life time I had the car), Honda recalled it for an igniter issue (after mine failed of course), and the left rear fender rusted badly in the 8 years I had it (all Integras rusted in the same spot). The interior disintegrated in the sun. And the muffler rusted out (I've never had a BMW need an exhaust).

My sister owned a 1987 Mustang 5.0 XL... It's drivetrain now lives on in my buddy's Factory Five Cobra he built in 2002.

[motoguy128]

$0.38/mi average operating cost. about $0.40 with insurance. Not bad overall for a luxury sport sedan. Though that will keep dropping at the depreciation is now almost zero.

That's at helluva commute! Damn! Driving is basically your hobby!

[driverman]

First let me say that the reason I ask for civility is that it's doubtful any of us are going to change anyone else's minds. Most of us are here to learn a few things and share our thoughts with other BMW enthusiasts (which is a tiny segment of the population). So if it isn't enjoyable, why do it? There are some that like combat, especially when they are anonymous and thousands of miles away, but most of us want to enjoy this interaction.

Regarding bashing Consumer Reports....

Anecdotal comments about a particular car turning out to be reliable even though CR said it wasn't don't justify bashing CR. It's like saying that you don't believe political polls showing Ben Carson ahead in Iowa because you know someone in Iowa that is voting for Trump. All surveys like this are based on statistics across a carefully chosen sample size.

For example, if the average of a particular problem for all cars is a 2% in a given year and car X has 5%, it might be flagged as worse than average or much worse than average. But 95% of the cars won't have this problem. So the 95% might be inclined to say that CR is wrong. But these people would be wrong not CR.

If you buy that, you might have grounds to criticize CR's methodology. They send questionnaires to subscribers and ask them what problems they've experienced. I've filled out lots of them. Do people answer honestly and accurately? Do you trust CR's motivation and statistical methods? I do but others may not. In case you are wondering, I have no affiliation with CR.

I'll give you a concrete example. Before I ordered my E90 in 2007, I checked CR. It showed that Infiniti G series was likely to be more reliable than the BMW 3 series. And the trend for decades was consistent with that - most Japanese cars were more reliable than most German cars. I drove the G and liked it but I liked the 3 series more and bought it. I made an informed decision and that's what CR is all about.

[BayMoWe335]

Originally Posted by driverman

Let's continue if we keep it friendly.

First - I disagree. CR is a great resource. I've following their reliability ratings for many years and they are generally pretty accurate.
Second - Maybe stranded isn't typical but how many N51/N52 owners have had to deal with limp mode 5 times?
Third - Complicated GENERALLY means less reliable. I'm an engineer and have dealt with the effects of complexity for decades. It takes more time to test and debug complicated solutions. It can be done (like in the space program) but it's so expensive and time consuming that almost all manufacturers let the customers be the guinea pigs the first few years.
Fourth - More heat can be dealt with by the cooling systems but it requires more engineering, more testing and more fixes. BMW added an oil cooler in the first few years of the N54, didn't they?

Even if you disregard all of that, you can't disregard that BMW's specialty has been NA I6s for decades. They are good at building them. The N54 was a much newer design so it was bound to have more problems in the beginning. And it did. I'm sure BMW will come close to perfecting their turbo engines at some point (if they already haven't done it) because they are betting the farm on them and they'll keep improving them as they learn more. This is good news for all of us.

Let's see what others have to say, like BMW service writers and technicians. I've asked many of them over the years and have always gotten the same answer - NA I6 have less problems than turbo models.

The problem with CR is that it's typically dumbed down for the audience and rarely accounts for ongoing improvements from the manufacturer. It's also VERY much designed for the "regular" person that really isn't an enthusiast. It generally overweights things that are less important to enthusiasts and overweights less important aspects.

Let's be honest...the HPFP thing is over. It was the N54's biggest Achilles heel and it's gone. I had the issue 2 or 3 times the first year and haven't had it in 5 years. The HPFP was more annoying than some huge deal, making the car unreliable. I went to limp mode and it sucked, but the care was driveable. Generally, you could restart it and it would be just fine.

I agree, the N54 is more complicated than an N52, but all BMWs have a huge amount of complexity, unrelated to the engine and very common between both platforms. The electronics, A/C, etc, etc are shared and are typically what makes cars "unreliable."

If you're looking for bulletproof reliability, get an Accord or Camry.

[driverman]

Originally Posted by BayMoWe335

I agree, the N54 is more complicated than an N52, but all BMWs have a huge amount of complexity, unrelated to the engine and very common between both platforms.

Good point - agreed.

[BayMoWe335]

I'm not even saying CR is completely invalid in its findings. They do a good job breaking down a lot of different factors, but this is generally not how people buy.

The problem with going with their "recommendations" is you might end up driving an Accord and thinking it's better than a BMW, even a 328i. It might be more reliable and a better "value," but generally misses more subtle points an enthusiast would rank a lot more important.

I've also found CR to be terrible at ranking home appliances. They rank features like a third rack in a dishwasher, space in a refrigerator, or features you might not care about as reasons to buy. They try to factor in all kind of crap that may or may not be important to the consumer...I find that's the issue. They try to be so thorough, the things that matter end up getting lost in the analysis.

People generally buy something because of a few and even arbitrary reasons. Studies have shown people buy cars because they like the radio or cup holders.

My guess is people buy BMWs for reasons hard to quantify on a CR.

[driverman]

Originally Posted by BayMoWe335

The problem with going with their "recommendations" is you might end up driving an Accord and thinking it's better than a BMW, even a 328i. It might be more reliable and a better "value," but generally misses more subtle points an enthusiast would rank a lot more important.

Agree 100%.

I don't agree with their recommendations but I find their reliability ratings very useful. I can read magazine reviews and test drive cars myself. But I can't get an approximation of how cars will hold up without the data they've gathered and analyzed.

Back to OP's thread....

What is the limiting factor on how long our cars will last? Is it the engine? How long will it last if properly maintained? Is it the tranny in 6AT cars? Or is it not one thing but lots of things failing that get too expensive to repair? Maybe nobody knows because the car has only been out for about 10 years. I'd like to keep mine for a very long time.

[Larsim]

Originally Posted by BayMoWe335

My guess is people buy BMWs for reasons hard to quantify on a CR.

I have to agree with this. I just bought my very first BMW ('07 335I) less than two months ago and couldn't care less what CR said about the reliability of BMWs. I bought a BMW because well, I wanted a BMW and wasn't scared of the maintenance cost and I suspect many think the same way.

Now I will say that in two months I have already spent more in maintenance on this BMW than I have the last 5 years put together on my other car which is an '05 Infiniti FX45.

Maintenance cost wise though you can't even compare BMWs with the Japanese. My BMW is like that beautiful high maintenance woman that needs to be taken out to a 5 five star restaurant every weekend followed by to a trip to Bloomingdale's while my Infiniti is like a beautiful woman that accepts eating at Chillis or Applebee's and then hangs out at the couch with me watching football .

[Fundguy1]

The other thing is the advertising in CR. Maybe it's me but I find it difficult to believe they are unbiased and at the same time the top rated makers have the most ad space on their pages.

[shadow191]

I thought CR didn't allow advertising in their magazine and companies weren't allowed to use their ratings to advertise their products.

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

The other thing is the advertising in CR. Maybe it's me but I find it difficult to believe they are unbiased and at the same time the top rated makers have the most ad space on their pages.

[Fundguy1]

They used to. Maybe they changed. I haven't read them since the 80s when it was a farce.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by BayMoWe335

I'm not even saying CR is completely invalid in its findings. They do a good job breaking down a lot of different factors, but this is generally not how people buy.

The problem with going with their "recommendations" is you might end up driving an Accord and thinking it's better than a BMW, even a 328i. It might be more reliable and a better "value," but generally misses more subtle points an enthusiast would rank a lot more important.

I've also found CR to be terrible at ranking home appliances. They rank features like a third rack in a dishwasher, space in a refrigerator, or features you might not care about as reasons to buy. They try to factor in all kind of crap that may or may not be important to the consumer...I find that's the issue. They try to be so thorough, the things that matter end up getting lost in the analysis.

People generally buy something because of a few and even arbitrary reasons. Studies have shown people buy cars because they like the radio or cup holders.

My guess is people buy BMWs for reasons hard to quantify on a CR.

Sadly, the majority of BMW buyers by the car for the Roundel on the hood and nothing more than that; it's been like that since the 1980's.

[Pyewacket69]

Originally Posted by shadow191

I thought CR didn't allow advertising in their magazine and companies weren't allowed to use their ratings to advertise their products.

I'm a current CR subscriber, and I can't recall seeing any advertising in the issues.

As for manufacturers using their results to advertise, I don't see how CR could stop it, since it's public information.

The problem with CR as I see it isn't what they determine or recommend, but folks that use is as their SOLE source of information in buying a product, instead as one of many sources.

Would you vote for a presidential candidate based solely upon the mailings and ads the candidate made, or would you read addition information published by others to determine if he/she was your selection?

I like to obtain as much info as I can before choosing.

CR gets a lot right, but they get a lot wrong, too. No one source is ever 100% right, all the time.

[snayko]

Originally Posted by driverman

Even if you disregard all of that, you can't disregard that BMW's specialty has been NA I6s for decades. They are good at building them. The N54 was a much newer design so it was bound to have more problems in the beginning. And it did. I'm sure BMW will come close to perfecting their turbo engines at some point (if they already haven't done it)

Ha, ha nice thread.

The only thing we have to understand that BMW is only thinking on how to make the next model cheaper than previous.
They can fix major problem or issues with engine just to make it alive until warranty expires.
Margin of safety is becoming worse and worse. And it doesn't matter if it's NA engine or turbo (my opinion)