BMW 3 series E90 - any good ?
Discussion
For years I have promised myself a bmw 318i/320i M Sport. Ever since the car first came out I have loved it and always give them a second look when I see them. I think it looks visually impressive and I quite like it inside (id opt for one with leather as I'm not keen in that cheap suede stuff they have as standard). I only do localish driving so it will be a petrol. What is the difference between the prefacelift and facelift (all I can see is a slightly different front bumper) ?
I am now in a position to seriously start looking at buying one so I was wondering what your experiences have been with them ?
Thanks
I am now in a position to seriously start looking at buying one so I was wondering what your experiences have been with them ?
Thanks
UK345 said:
For years I have promised myself a bmw 318i/320i M Sport. Ever since the car first came out I have loved it and always give them a second look when I see them. I think it looks visually impressive and I quite like it inside (id opt for one with leather as I'm not keen in that cheap suede stuff they have as standard). I only do localish driving so it will be a petrol. What is the difference between the prefacelift and facelift (all I can see is a slightly different front bumper) ?
I am now in a position to seriously start looking at buying one so I was wondering what your experiences have been with them ?
Thanks
My opinion is they are bland and generic, while quite competent. I wouldn't get anything less than a 325. Might as well go for a convertible one while you are at it.I am now in a position to seriously start looking at buying one so I was wondering what your experiences have been with them ?
Thanks
Al U said:
My opinion is they are bland and generic, while quite competent. I wouldn't get anything less than a 325. Might as well go for a convertible one while you are at it.
This^^ - the bottom of the range is no better than the equivalent Ford, selling on the badge. It's only when you get into the 6-cyliner range do they become a proper drivers car.I've got an E90 335i and it's a great car.
Imo go for anything that is 6cyl petrol (325 is the minimum) and go for a post 2009 one as tax will be cheaper, they came with better spec satnav (if fitted) and it also has the more aggressive front bumper and LED rear lights (The majority of lights on the LCI are LED)
The facelift (LCI) has other different things like interior tweeks, different mirrors, roof rails and a wider rear track.
Imo go for anything that is 6cyl petrol (325 is the minimum) and go for a post 2009 one as tax will be cheaper, they came with better spec satnav (if fitted) and it also has the more aggressive front bumper and LED rear lights (The majority of lights on the LCI are LED)
The facelift (LCI) has other different things like interior tweeks, different mirrors, roof rails and a wider rear track.
The facelifted rear lights look better I think. The rears have incorporated reversing lights as opposed to ones that sit on top of the cluster. On the front, the kidney chrome eyebrows have disappeared leaving an uncluttered grill and they added a Klingon crease in the bonnet as well. I think the LCI is a better looking car for the tweakage and agree with others, go for a six-pot if you can.
Monty Python said:
the bottom of the range is no better than the equivalent Ford, selling on the badge.
I really don't think there's any such thing as "selling on the badge", at least not with a BMW either. Firstly, take yourself out of the UK mindset - in mainland Europe a BMW is not a 'badge' - Mercedes yes, but BMW no. Secondly, a rear drive saloon costs more to build than a front drive one, and the quality is a bit higher on a BMW than a Ford, yet the 3 series isn't actually that much more expensive than the equivalent Mondeo. Thirdly, I haven't seen exact figures, but I've seen a lot of secondary evidence that the Ford has a much higher profit margin too (e.g. discounts available, fleet buy prices etc). Get onto Parkers or similar and look at the new prices.Monty Python said:
It's only when you get into the 6-cyliner range do they become a proper drivers car.
Whether something is a driver's car or not, in most people's definition, has more to do with the controls, feedback and chassis balance and not much to do with the engine (other than the engine's weight, and surely a 6 cylinder engine weighs more?). Nobody's going to say that a Caterham R500 is more of a driver's car than an R300 are they? Or the 205 GTi 1.9 than the 1.6? I'll leave it up for debate whether the E90 is a driver's car or not (although I do have an opinion - see below), but there's one thing for sure, if you don't think that a 320i isn't a driver's car then a 330i sure as hell isn't, because the same car with a heavier engine and more power isn't going to make something a driver's car, if anything less so. And yes, I've driven both, on multiple occasions and owned several 3 series of all different engine sizes. A 320i drives pretty much the same as a 330ci, other than feeling slightly more nimble and free over the bumps due to its lower weight. There certainly isn't something that suddenly gets unlocked when you move from a 320i to a 330i, other than that lovely 6 cylinder engine of course, but that's just an aesthetic appeal based on sound and feel, it's nothing to do with the 330ci being more of a driver's car than a 320i.The above is pretty much accepted common sense, but in my opinion in terms of driving, the E90 is in a different league to anything front wheel drive I've driven in this sector (Mondeo, A4, Passat etc), but obviously it's a saloon car and it's not going to drive as well as most dedicated sports cars (MR2, MX5, Boxster etc). To try and combat the 'fan boy' accusations in advance, yes, I'd far rather drive an MR2 or Boxster than a 3 series on a twisty road and yes, a Honda or Toyota is better built and yes, in terms of equipment and spec a Mondeo is better value, but a Mondeo driving better or similar to a 3 series? That really doesn't make any sense at all - the two cars have completely different layouts and if you can't detect the consequentially huge differences you should probably stick to commenting on the 'blandness' and other image based aspects of cars. A car with a longitudinal engine, gearbox between the occupants and diff at the back will never drive in a similar way to a car with a transverse engine slung up front along with the gearbox and diff. It's the same the Mercedes C Class for example (jump in a 300k miles C Class taxi abroad and you'll instantly know it's FE/RWD from the passenger seat as soon as you take the first corner).
In terms of the E90 compared to other 3 series, it's a tricky one because they all have their strong points. Generally, the later the 3 series the better they handle (not drive, handle) (arguably - plenty will disagree with that), although weight crept up slightly over the years (but not as much as you'd think - the lower spec E90s are still under 1400kg - BMW weights are quoted with a 75kg driver and a full tank of fuel) and refinement took leaps and bounds as the years went on, which dullens the B road driving experience a bit. So in balance I prefer the E90 to the E36 for all round use, but if it was a car purely for B roads I'd prefer a good E36, but then again I'd rather have a proper sports car for B roads. Don't buy an E90 as a driver's car, because it'll disappoint, but if you need roof bars, a boot, four seats, refinement on the motorway etc, I genuinely can't think of a better driver's car.
Edited by RobM77 on Monday 18th May 09:20
Dannbodge said:
I've got an E90 335i and it's a great car.
go for a post 2009 one as tax will be cheaper, they came with better spec satnav (if fitted)
go for a post 2009 one as tax will be cheaper, they came with better spec satnav (if fitted)
The early iDrive works well, but it's ridiculously slow. Some of the later cars also had more power - for example the 320d went from 163bhp to around 180bhp, although it gained an engine known for timing chain faults (I've no idea how common they are though, it might just be a storm in a teacup).I can't say I agree with too much of what Rob said.
Anyway, my daily hack is a 2007 E90 320d, so prefacelift. It's a pleasant enough thing but is definitely not streets ahead quality-wise of its predecessor, a 2006 Vectra 150 CDTi.
Maybe I just got a particularly reliable Vectra...
There's lots more value in the equivalent mondeo, that's for sure, particularly as a petrol.
Anyway, my daily hack is a 2007 E90 320d, so prefacelift. It's a pleasant enough thing but is definitely not streets ahead quality-wise of its predecessor, a 2006 Vectra 150 CDTi.
Maybe I just got a particularly reliable Vectra...
There's lots more value in the equivalent mondeo, that's for sure, particularly as a petrol.
Barchettaman said:
I can't say I agree with too much of what Rob said.
Anyway, my daily hack is a 2007 E90 320d, so prefacelift. It's a pleasant enough thing but is definitely not streets ahead quality-wise of its predecessor, a 2006 Vectra 150 CDTi.
Maybe I just got a particularly reliable Vectra...
There's lots more value in the equivalent mondeo, that's for sure, particularly as a petrol.
I didn't say it was streets ahead on quality, just a bit, but not streets ahead. I also never mentioned reliability (for which I'd say they're probably similar, but it's difficult to judge as JD Power etc are based on cost of repair, and BMW parts cost more than Ford or Vx parts). I was mainly commenting on how the car drives - in that respect I think it's leagues ahead of the FWD opposition in this sector.Anyway, my daily hack is a 2007 E90 320d, so prefacelift. It's a pleasant enough thing but is definitely not streets ahead quality-wise of its predecessor, a 2006 Vectra 150 CDTi.
Maybe I just got a particularly reliable Vectra...
There's lots more value in the equivalent mondeo, that's for sure, particularly as a petrol.
If you don't really care how a car drives through the corners and are easily affected by image and how common a car is (most of PH I think?) then yes, the Mondeo is a better car for those criteria.
I think the difference can be summed up as follows:-
You might like being in a Mondeo, Passat, A4 or similar, but almost none of that pleasure will come from the actual driving experience - you might like the seats or the radio or that it looks nice, but you wont be taking much enjoyment from the primary controls or the handling.
A 3er, by contrast, is actually quite good fun to drive. A powerful one will light up the rears, step out a bit, etc; but even a weakling like a 320i will have nice balance, reasonably pleasant steering and will be enjoyable to punt down a road.
Contrary to what Rob says, I wouldn't look at anything with 4 cyl if you can afford a 6 cyl. Not for the pace (a 325 is hardly quick) but for the sound and feel of a nicer engine.
You might like being in a Mondeo, Passat, A4 or similar, but almost none of that pleasure will come from the actual driving experience - you might like the seats or the radio or that it looks nice, but you wont be taking much enjoyment from the primary controls or the handling.
A 3er, by contrast, is actually quite good fun to drive. A powerful one will light up the rears, step out a bit, etc; but even a weakling like a 320i will have nice balance, reasonably pleasant steering and will be enjoyable to punt down a road.
Contrary to what Rob says, I wouldn't look at anything with 4 cyl if you can afford a 6 cyl. Not for the pace (a 325 is hardly quick) but for the sound and feel of a nicer engine.
ORD said:
I think the difference can be summed up as follows:-
You might like being in a Mondeo, Passat, A4 or similar, but almost none of that pleasure will come from the actual driving experience - you might like the seats or the radio or that it looks nice, but you wont be taking much enjoyment from the primary controls or the handling.
A 3er, by contrast, is actually quite good fun to drive. A powerful one will light up the rears, step out a bit, etc; but even a weakling like a 320i will have nice balance, reasonably pleasant steering and will be enjoyable to punt down a road.
Contrary to what Rob says, I wouldn't look at anything with 4 cyl if you can afford a 6 cyl. Not for the pace (a 325 is hardly quick) but for the sound and feel of a nicer engine.
You might like being in a Mondeo, Passat, A4 or similar, but almost none of that pleasure will come from the actual driving experience - you might like the seats or the radio or that it looks nice, but you wont be taking much enjoyment from the primary controls or the handling.
A 3er, by contrast, is actually quite good fun to drive. A powerful one will light up the rears, step out a bit, etc; but even a weakling like a 320i will have nice balance, reasonably pleasant steering and will be enjoyable to punt down a road.
Contrary to what Rob says, I wouldn't look at anything with 4 cyl if you can afford a 6 cyl. Not for the pace (a 325 is hardly quick) but for the sound and feel of a nicer engine.
As I say above in my first post, exactly to the word:RobM77 said:
There certainly isn't something that suddenly gets unlocked when you move from a 320i to a 330i, other than that lovely 6 cylinder engine of course, but that's just an aesthetic appeal based on sound and feel, it's nothing to do with the 330ci being more of a driver's car than a 320i.
It completely depends how interested in engines you are to be honest. All my petrol BMWs have been the 6 cylinder though, for exactly these reasons (I've owned an E36 325i, E46 330i, E36 328i and Z4C). The only reason I've gone off them is the electronic latency/lag between throttle input and engine response.RobM77 said:
It completely depends how interested in engines you are to be honest. All my petrol BMWs have been the 6 cylinder though, for exactly these reasons (I've owned an E36 325i, E46 330i, E36 328i and Z4C). The only reason I've gone off them is the electronic latency/lag between throttle input and engine response.
Quite. I am sorry that I missed your sound and feel point.Unless you cant afford it, I would always advise people to go for a 6 cyl engine. Even if people aren't too bothered about engine note, feel under load etc, they can usually appreciate the extra refinement - almost all 4 cyl engines are rattly and diesel-like compared to a 6 cyl. The engine in my wife's 320i is, at best, a non-event in terms of sound and feel - when it breaks through the veneer of refinement (mostly a lot of sound-proofing), it is a coarse thing, especially at start up. (It revs really nicely, though, which is impressive for a turbo 4.)
ORD said:
Contrary to what Rob says, I wouldn't look at anything with 4 cyl if you can afford a 6 cyl. Not for the pace (a 325 is hardly quick) but for the sound and feel of a nicer engine.
The 4 cylinder might sound different, but it will be cheaper to run.Every time you are at the petrol station, taxing it, insuring it or getting it serviced,
you'll be quids in over the 6 cylinder.
This could be a significant factor for some people.
The 320 does 140 mph, the 325 over 150 mph and there's about 1 second
in it at the traffic light Grand Prix.
I recently got myself an e92 330i msport and love it. I came from a 325ci e46 and it is worlds apart.
Mine has the n53 engine which is surprisingly economical for a 270bhp car. Easily get 30mpg round town and 40+ on a run. Road tax is £205 also and insurance is surpisinlgy cheap too.
As others have said, get a 6 cylinder and they become real good drivers cars. They're not racey, but quick enough to make you grin and sound great.
Only criticism is the msport suspension and wheels can be a bit hard round town. I slightly regret it as there's speed humps everywhere i live, but once out of town it is sublime. I just take it real steady over the bumps and it's ok.
Mine has the n53 engine which is surprisingly economical for a 270bhp car. Easily get 30mpg round town and 40+ on a run. Road tax is £205 also and insurance is surpisinlgy cheap too.
As others have said, get a 6 cylinder and they become real good drivers cars. They're not racey, but quick enough to make you grin and sound great.
Only criticism is the msport suspension and wheels can be a bit hard round town. I slightly regret it as there's speed humps everywhere i live, but once out of town it is sublime. I just take it real steady over the bumps and it's ok.
ORD said:
RobM77 said:
It completely depends how interested in engines you are to be honest. All my petrol BMWs have been the 6 cylinder though, for exactly these reasons (I've owned an E36 325i, E46 330i, E36 328i and Z4C). The only reason I've gone off them is the electronic latency/lag between throttle input and engine response.
Quite. I am sorry that I missed your sound and feel point.Unless you cant afford it, I would always advise people to go for a 6 cyl engine. Even if people aren't too bothered about engine note, feel under load etc, they can usually appreciate the extra refinement - almost all 4 cyl engines are rattly and diesel-like compared to a 6 cyl. The engine in my wife's 320i is, at best, a non-event in terms of sound and feel - when it breaks through the veneer of refinement (mostly a lot of sound-proofing), it is a coarse thing, especially at start up. (It revs really nicely, though, which is impressive for a turbo 4.)
I do agree though, the 6cyl engine offers a lot more refinement and sounds lovely. It was purely the throttle lateny/lag issue that made me move on from them. Didn't BMW even used to do a 6cyl 2.0 engine years ago in the E36?The other things worth mentioning are the mpg/bhp, which is normally better in a BMW than in other cars (a 330ci with 265bhp will do mid 30s mpg quite easily), and the refinement at speed (e.g. Autocar's Db at 70mph measurement), which is extremely good compared to the opposition, if Autocar's tests are reliable that is, but to my ears the E90 is very noticeably quieter on the motorway than other cars of this type.
RobM77 said:
That's ok. I got a bit ranty because a badge snob suggested a front wheel drive Ford was better to drive than a 3 series and it sort of took over my post I do agree though, the 6cyl engine offers a lot more refinement and sounds lovely. It was purely the throttle lateny/lag issue that made me move on from them. Didn't BMW even used to do a 6cyl 2.0 engine years ago in the E36?
The other things worth mentioning are the mpg/bhp, which is normally better in a BMW than in other cars (a 330ci with 265bhp will do mid 30s mpg quite easily), and the refinement at speed (e.g. Autocar's Db at 70mph measurement), which is extremely good compared to the opposition, if Autocar's tests are reliable that is, but to my ears the E90 is very noticeably quieter on the motorway than other cars of this type.
I am not really persuaded of the fuel efficiency gains of a 2.0 turbo over an NA 6 cyl of similar power. A few examples from my experience:- I do agree though, the 6cyl engine offers a lot more refinement and sounds lovely. It was purely the throttle lateny/lag issue that made me move on from them. Didn't BMW even used to do a 6cyl 2.0 engine years ago in the E36?The other things worth mentioning are the mpg/bhp, which is normally better in a BMW than in other cars (a 330ci with 265bhp will do mid 30s mpg quite easily), and the refinement at speed (e.g. Autocar's Db at 70mph measurement), which is extremely good compared to the opposition, if Autocar's tests are reliable that is, but to my ears the E90 is very noticeably quieter on the motorway than other cars of this type.
On the same journey and at similar speeds, my wife's 320i touring gets about 40mpg compared to my Cayman S at around 34mpg - sure, the Cayman is a lot lighter, but it also produces 130 bhp more.
The highest mpg that I have seen from a 4 cyl petrol turbo is 48 from a C-Class with a horrid engine, but that was on a journey that would see 35mpg + in pretty much any car - motorway cruising at 50-70mph.
I think a long-geared NA 3.0 aimed at fuel efficiency would be not far at all away from a turbo 2.0 for most people.
ORD said:
RobM77 said:
That's ok. I got a bit ranty because a badge snob suggested a front wheel drive Ford was better to drive than a 3 series and it sort of took over my post I do agree though, the 6cyl engine offers a lot more refinement and sounds lovely. It was purely the throttle lateny/lag issue that made me move on from them. Didn't BMW even used to do a 6cyl 2.0 engine years ago in the E36?
The other things worth mentioning are the mpg/bhp, which is normally better in a BMW than in other cars (a 330ci with 265bhp will do mid 30s mpg quite easily), and the refinement at speed (e.g. Autocar's Db at 70mph measurement), which is extremely good compared to the opposition, if Autocar's tests are reliable that is, but to my ears the E90 is very noticeably quieter on the motorway than other cars of this type.
I am not really persuaded of the fuel efficiency gains of a 2.0 turbo over an NA 6 cyl of similar power. A few examples from my experience:- I do agree though, the 6cyl engine offers a lot more refinement and sounds lovely. It was purely the throttle lateny/lag issue that made me move on from them. Didn't BMW even used to do a 6cyl 2.0 engine years ago in the E36?The other things worth mentioning are the mpg/bhp, which is normally better in a BMW than in other cars (a 330ci with 265bhp will do mid 30s mpg quite easily), and the refinement at speed (e.g. Autocar's Db at 70mph measurement), which is extremely good compared to the opposition, if Autocar's tests are reliable that is, but to my ears the E90 is very noticeably quieter on the motorway than other cars of this type.
On the same journey and at similar speeds, my wife's 320i touring gets about 40mpg compared to my Cayman S at around 34mpg - sure, the Cayman is a lot lighter, but it also produces 130 bhp more.
The highest mpg that I have seen from a 4 cyl petrol turbo is 48 from a C-Class with a horrid engine, but that was on a journey that would see 35mpg + in pretty much any car - motorway cruising at 50-70mph.
I think a long-geared NA 3.0 aimed at fuel efficiency would be not far at all away from a turbo 2.0 for most people.
RobM77 said:
I don't know this for a fact, but I've always assumed it was a difference between the artificial EU cycle testing and the real world.
If we assume a 20% difference between 4 cyl and 6 cyl in the official figures, I would say that at least half of that is because the official cycle is a terrible guide to real driving. If you drive remotely enthusiastically, the 4cyl will be on a boost a lot of the time, at which point it is burning fuel like a bigger capacity engine. A 10% difference (which is about what I guess it is in real life) isn't worth worrying about to most people.
(There is also the point, which not everyone agrees with, I know, that turbo engines are disgusting and an abomination and are hated by God/the Gods/whatever
) IME, the 4 cyl 3 series handle better than the 6 cyl versions (note "Handle", not "grip" or "performance") because they have less weight over the front axle.
None of them is a sports car that's for sure. They are very refined, and cover ground fast and effectively, but with little connection to the driver. However, the benefits of the rwd layout are clearly obvious even when pootle-ing around, and when you start to push on, they just get better (unlike a typical front wheel drive large saloon car, which starts to struggle to contain it's front axle loadings).
But if you need the other attributes of a saloon car rather than a sports car, they are pretty much unbeatable as a total package imo.
None of them is a sports car that's for sure. They are very refined, and cover ground fast and effectively, but with little connection to the driver. However, the benefits of the rwd layout are clearly obvious even when pootle-ing around, and when you start to push on, they just get better (unlike a typical front wheel drive large saloon car, which starts to struggle to contain it's front axle loadings).
But if you need the other attributes of a saloon car rather than a sports car, they are pretty much unbeatable as a total package imo.
Gassing Station | Car Buying | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff