220 Turbo

Author
Discussion

Beemer-5

Original Poster:

7,897 posts

221 months

Saturday 28th July 2007
quotequote all
Good and bad points of these would be?

sirhc

268 posts

209 months

Sunday 29th July 2007
quotequote all
Presume we're talking petrol?
If petrol.
Good points:-
Prob wont find a faster car for the money (0-60,6.3.0-100,14.7 secs,149mph top speed,197 BHP standard ect). Look much the same as the lesser models if kept standard. Cheap insurance.
Bad points:-
Build quality, trim ect. Likes a headgasket. Weak gearbox. Hope you like torquesteer.

Id have another tomorrow.

Are you thinking of getting one?

Beemer-5

Original Poster:

7,897 posts

221 months

Tuesday 31st July 2007
quotequote all
No a friend has one he is doing up slowly.

Noxide

33 posts

215 months

Tuesday 31st July 2007
quotequote all
Hi all, just been alerted to this thread.

Build quality is decent if not fantastic - everything is still screwed together after 70k miles, no trim falling off and the interior is lacking in annoying squeaks.

Insurance isn't too bad considering it's a group 18 car, the economy seems to be pretty decent if driven with a conservative right foot. Reliablity has been spot on with mine, minus a couple of (very) minor niggles - slight sump leak. Headgasket, while still a issue to a degree on these cars, is no where near as bad as the infamous K series lumps which these are often mistaken with. The 16v DOCH Turbo on these cars is the T-Series, loosely based on the old O-Series bottom end with a 16v head!

Mine has a faulty boost controller which is limiting boost to around 9psi - this is after being limited to 7psi in the first 4k revs, to save drivetrain - standard full boost should be 11.7psi. Despite putting out probably only around 180bhp, I have still been able to see of yer Cooper S, Octavia vRS fodder, due to the torque and lightweight at 1185kg.

So, a quick, cheap, rare car but it does have faults. Poor handling feedback, lack of tuneability due to chocolate pistons and a dubious image due to the 200 K series cooking models.

sirhc

268 posts

209 months

Wednesday 1st August 2007
quotequote all
Noxide said:
Hi all, just been alerted to this thread.

Build quality is decent if not fantastic - everything is still screwed together after 70k miles, no trim falling off and the interior is lacking in annoying squeaks.

Insurance isn't too bad considering it's a group 18 car, the economy seems to be pretty decent if driven with a conservative right foot. Reliablity has been spot on with mine, minus a couple of (very) minor niggles - slight sump leak. Headgasket, while still a issue to a degree on these cars, is no where near as bad as the infamous K series lumps which these are often mistaken with. The 16v DOCH Turbo on these cars is the T-Series, loosely based on the old O-Series bottom end with a 16v head!

Mine has a faulty boost controller which is limiting boost to around 9psi - this is after being limited to 7psi in the first 4k revs, to save drivetrain - standard full boost should be 11.7psi. Despite putting out probably only around 180bhp, I have still been able to see of yer Cooper S, Octavia vRS fodder, due to the torque and lightweight at 1185kg.

So, a quick, cheap, rare car but it does have faults. Poor handling feedback, lack of tuneability due to chocolate pistons and a dubious image due to the 200 K series cooking models.
Dont know bout lack of tuneability, A certain Mr Nicholls might disagree.
Checkout his website.
http://www.an-racing.com/index.html

Noxide

33 posts

215 months

Wednesday 1st August 2007
quotequote all
I meant more in regard to not being able to run more than 12psi of boost (factory standard 11.7) without spending £500 on forged pistons and the like. smile

tali1

5,274 posts

208 months

Sunday 16th September 2007
quotequote all
very rare sold less than 300