Latest Car&Driver Comparo?
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos
Did anyone catch the comparo that C&D did this month? I think the
ratings were:
#1: Audi A4 Q Turbo
#2: Integra GS-R
#3: Contour SVT
#4: Saab 900S
#5: Jetta VR6
First reaction: Nya Nya Nya Nya Nya Ryan (a perfectly mature response)
Second reaction: whose bright idea was to include the 900?
Third reaction: how many clutches did they use to get 0-60 in 7.9 sec
on said 900 (5 speed)
Fourth reaction: the SVT is cool
Fifth reaction: 1.8 liters (turbo) and 3200 pounds?
Sixth reaction: why did they NOT test the Passat VR6?
I've seen lots of Audi's lately and they look nice; more important,
they look relatively non-descript.
Any reactions from the esteemed elders?
Spiros
--
at home in Central Indiana | software engineer (Tools/C/Unix/X11/Motif/GUIs)
www.primenet.com/~strianta | grad student,human factors engineering,Purdue U
stri...@primenet.com | "Reading, 'Rithmetic, and Readnews since 1983"
RMoburg
On 3 Feb 1997 20:23:04 -0700, Spiros Triantafyllopoulos
<stri...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Did anyone catch the comparo that C&D did this month? I think the
>ratings were:
>
Spirors,
When did it come out? I haven't seen it yet?
Gary Kercheck
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos <stri...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Did anyone catch the comparo that C&D did this month? I think the
>ratings were:
>
>#2: Integra GS-R
>#3: Contour SVT
>#4: Saab 900S
>#5: Jetta VR6
>
>First reaction: Nya Nya Nya Nya Nya Ryan (a perfectly mature response)
Well, Ryan's gonna say the new Passat is the same as the A4 so a VW
came out on top afterall.
>Second reaction: whose bright idea was to include the 900?
Hey, it beat the Jetta!
>Third reaction: how many clutches did they use to get 0-60 in 7.9 sec
> on said 900 (5 speed)
>Fourth reaction: the SVT is cool
How fast was it?
>Fifth reaction: 1.8 liters (turbo) and 3200 pounds?
I read it was just as fast as the six cylinder A4.
>Sixth reaction: why did they NOT test the Passat VR6?
The new Passat will be here soon so they probably didn't think
it would be fair to test the old one.
>I've seen lots of Audi's lately and they look nice; more important,
>they look relatively non-descript.
I especially like the black with tan interior. The silver A4s are also
quite striking.
Rod
In article <32f73560...@206.66.12.200>
rmo...@insnet.com (RMoburg) writes:
>
>On 3 Feb 1997 20:23:04 -0700, Spiros Triantafyllopoulos
><stri...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
>>Did anyone catch the comparo that C&D did this month? I think the
>>ratings were:
>
>
>When did it come out? I haven't seen it yet?
...if you were a subscriber to C&D... :)
---
-Rod 1ryh...@ibm.mtsac.edu
My home page: http://www.mtsac.edu:81/~1ryh2766/
ASI: http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/3673/
------------------------------------------------------------
1994 Toyota Supra Turbo * 1996 Honda Accord LX
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos
Rod <1RYH...@MtSACvm.MtSAC.edu> wrote:
: >When did it come out? I haven't seen it yet?
:
: Not that I'm Spirors? (U spelled it wrong, its Spiros)
: ...if you were a subscriber to C&D... :)
There goes my reputation as a non-enthusiast. We get it at work
at the Tech Library...
Shawn P. Church
Gary Kercheck wrote:
>
> Spiros Triantafyllopoulos <stri...@primenet.com> wrote:
> >Did anyone catch the comparo that C&D did this month? I think the
> >ratings were:
> >
> >#2: Integra GS-R
> >#3: Contour SVT
> >#4: Saab 900S
> >#5: Jetta VR6
> >
Anyone have the rest of the stats (not on the newsstand yet)?
Can't say that I'm surprised the Audi won. If the V6 could beat the
3-series then this result is reasonable. I'm rather surprised the GS-R
finished as high as it did. Considering it probably has less interior
room than the rest and probably the most raucous motor (something I like)
and certainly doesn't have the same level of luxury as the A4. Must be a
testament to the dynamic goodness of the car. At the very least, the A4
is the best looking car in the bunch. You know, I think this is the
first comparo in CD that a GS-R has finished anything but first in!
Guess that's why they have a 4 year model cycle at Honda. By the 4th
year, you start losing comparos and have to upgrade the model.
Rgds,
Shawn
John Henry
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos wrote:
>
> Did anyone catch the comparo that C&D did this month? I think the
> ratings were:
>
> #1: Audi A4 Q Turbo
> #2: Integra GS-R
> #3: Contour SVT
> #4: Saab 900S
> #5: Jetta VR6
>
{his taunts snipped}
> Any reactions from the esteemed elders?
No, I'm not an elder, but I did read the "draft" comparo that had the
"Targeted Market" notations:
#1: Audi A4 Q Turbo- "I really wanted a Porsche but I couldn't afford
one and I'm losing my hair and uncomfortable drawing that much attention
to my self"
#2: Integra GS-R- "I really wanted a Honda but I'm losing my hair and
this car makes me feel younger (for only $1500 more!)"
#3: Contour SVT- "OK, I admit it, Ford is finally making a nice car."
#4: Saab 900S- "*I* wanted a SPORTS car. Now honey, can you pick up the
kids from day care tomorrow, I have an early tee time with Archibald and
the Nanny is at bridge"
#5: Jetta VR6- "I like to drive. F&^k what everbody else thinks"
you asked.
--
John Henry
'85 VW Cabriolet- Alloy rims : Leather Interior : 1.8l :
H4 conversion : Bosch Driving Lights : 5 Speed : Cruise :
Raytheon Technologies Rear Facing Rocket Launcher : Kimmel
XLf80 Fusion Cannon w/Laser Tracking : Martom Tuhf range
finder with GPS : AM/FM Cassette :
'57 VW Beetle- very evenly distributed across a 2 car garage
RMoburg
On Tue, 04 Feb 1997 13:11:10 GMT, rmo...@insnet.com (RMoburg) wrote:
>On 3 Feb 1997 20:23:04 -0700, Spiros Triantafyllopoulos
><stri...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
>>Did anyone catch the comparo that C&D did this month? I think the
>>ratings were:
>>
>
>
>Spirors,
Spiros,
Actually you aren't in my spelling checker go figure.... Sorry I just
added you.
BTW,
My C&D still isn't here.
>
Eric Bin
rmo...@insnet.com (RMoburg) writes:
>Spiros,
>Actually you aren't in my spelling checker go figure.... Sorry I just
>added you.
>BTW,
>My C&D still isn't here.
You're still in a better situation than me. I still don't have my
Corvette issue yet. My issue arrives when the next one comes out. It's
irritating as hell.
--
Eric Bin
eb...@sfu.ca
President of the Unofficial Luc Longley Internet Fan Club
Season Update: Bulls w/ Luc: 22-2. Bulls w/o Luc: 19-3.
Sergey Macheret
Gary Kercheck wrote:
>
> Spiros Triantafyllopoulos <stri...@primenet.com> wrote:
> >Did anyone catch the comparo that C&D did this month? I think the
> >Fourth reaction: the SVT is cool
>
> How fast was it?
0-60 at 7.1 sec, 1/4 mile - 15.4 @91 mph, top speed 140 mph,
slalom 63.3 mph, wasn't tested on skidpad due to weather.
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos
Sergey Macheret <mach...@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
: > >Fourth reaction: the SVT is cool
: >
: > How fast was it?
: 0-60 at 7.1 sec, 1/4 mile - 15.4 @91 mph, top speed 140 mph,
: slalom 63.3 mph, wasn't tested on skidpad due to weather.
Don't forget the SVT's other benefit; STEALTH :-). You could
run me over with one and I'd still be thinking Avis...
The other ones look kinda flashy except the Jetta which is also
more 'generic', and the Audi which looks 'luxury generic'.
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos
Bentley <ben...@access4.digex.net> wrote:
: Spiros Triantafyllopoulos (stri...@primenet.com) said something like:
: : Did anyone catch the comparo that C&D did this month? I think the
: : ratings were:
: Yeah, I got it today. That's two months in a row now that Saabs have
: performed, shall we say, less than astoundingly in C/D comparisons...
As we both know, however, there's more to cars than C/D comparos.
: : First reaction: Nya Nya Nya Nya Nya Ryan (a perfectly mature response)
: Eh? I'm surprised he hasn't crowed about VW superiority already (Audi=VW,
: no?)
True. If the new Passat is anything like the Audi, they're in for a
success story if the price and quality are reasonable.
: : Second reaction: whose bright idea was to include the 900?
: Eh? Price, performance, all pretty much in line, no?
Yes, numerically. But most people don't just walk into a Saab dealership,
it takes a bit of 'more' to do it. Sorta like the Jetta, a bit of a cult.
But then I can see a bit of a cult in the Audi as well, and a hint at
the GS-R...
: : Third reaction: how many clutches did they use to get 0-60 in 7.9 sec
: : on said 900 (5 speed)
: It's the 6.6 for the Integra Type R that made my jaw drop. And M/T got 8.4
: sec on their 900S, so it's not out of the question
Power/Weight ratio almighty! I'd guess my 900 is in line with my old
SL2, which would do mid 8's...
: : Sixth reaction: why did they NOT test the Passat VR6?
: Easy one: New model out soon, that's SOP for C/D.
Ok.
: : Any reactions from the esteemed elders?
: Oops, I'm neither.
: PS I liked the cool shots of the 2000GT. Many folks have never even seen
: one of these beauties.
Yep. Sad. Nice cars, and to think all that comes out of Japan now is
$40K RX7's and boring midsized sedans...
Rod
In article <5dbkbf$g...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos <stri...@primenet.com> writes:
>
>Bentley <ben...@access4.digex.net> wrote:
>: Spiros Triantafyllopoulos (stri...@primenet.com) said something like:
>
>: Eh? I'm surprised he hasn't crowed about VW superiority already (Audi=VW,
>: no?)
>
>True. If the new Passat is anything like the Audi, they're in for a
>success story if the price and quality are reasonable.
>
>: PS I liked the cool shots of the 2000GT. Many folks have never even seen
>: one of these beauties.
>
>Yep. Sad. Nice cars, and to think all that comes out of Japan now is
>$40K RX7's and boring midsized sedans...
Hehe, not even 40k RX7s, Spiros, well, in the US at least.
The RX-7 is extinct. ......so is the Nissan 300ZX, MR2, CRX, and the list goes
on... In the upper range only the Supra, and 3000GT are left. Even the
Stealth is gone... Of course these extinct vehicles are sold elsewhere in the
world still... (some at least.)
David Masten
In article <5d6a2o$4...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, Spiros Triantafyllopoulos <stri...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Did anyone catch the comparo that C&D did this month? I think the
>ratings were:
Still don't have my issue, nor my R&T or MT this month, grrr. Why haven't I
rec'vd any of them yet? (Not that I really miss the MT).
>#1: Audi A4 Q Turbo
>#2: Integra GS-R
>#3: Contour SVT
>#4: Saab 900S
>#5: Jetta VR6
>Second reaction: whose bright idea was to include the 900?
I guess it fits in price (barely). Actually, option up an A4QT to the same
level, and include the usual Saab discounts (nevermind the one you and I
get, Spiros!) and the Saab is cheaper. It is lighter. It is at least
considered a euro-sport. So, why not include it?
>Third reaction: how many clutches did they use to get 0-60 in 7.9 sec
> on said 900 (5 speed)
Same number as in the Audi? They've reported this time in the past. C&D
usually gets seemingly optimistic times.
>Fourth reaction: the SVT is cool
I'm curious about this one. Is it out? If not, when? And how much?
Still, I don't really like the looks of the Contours, in or out. Too bad as
it seems like a nice car.
>Fifth reaction: 1.8 liters (turbo) and 3200 pounds?
Well, if all the stories about 200hp with just a chip and maybe a K&N, not
as bad as it seems.
>Sixth reaction: why did they NOT test the Passat VR6?
Not out yet? This is an eclectic list when you ponder it. Two hatches.
Are they all four doors? Probably. That would make it a test of sporty
4-doors in the $20-25K range (not including options). And explain the
choice of Jetta over GTi. And the no show of the BMW 318ti (a car I would
have liked to have seen included).
>Any reactions from the esteemed elders?
Don't know if I qualify.
As Shawn wrote, this is the first time C&D didn't pick the GS-R number one.
I still think they are overly enthusiastic about it.
When are the A4QT manuals to arrive? I'd like to drive one.
Bentley
: ratings were:
Yeah, I got it today. That's two months in a row now that Saabs have
performed, shall we say, less than astoundingly in C/D comparisons...
: First reaction: Nya Nya Nya Nya Nya Ryan (a perfectly mature response)
Eh? I'm surprised he hasn't crowed about VW superiority already (Audi=VW,
no?)
: Second reaction: whose bright idea was to include the 900?
Eh? Price, performance, all pretty much in line, no?
: Third reaction: how many clutches did they use to get 0-60 in 7.9 sec
: on said 900 (5 speed)
It's the 6.6 for the Integra Type R that made my jaw drop. And M/T got 8.4
sec on their 900S, so it's not out of the question
: Sixth reaction: why did they NOT test the Passat VR6?
Easy one: New model out soon, that's SOP for C/D.
: Any reactions from the esteemed elders?
Oops, I'm neither.
PS I liked the cool shots of the 2000GT. Many folks have never even seen
one of these beauties.
--
> B E N T L E Y < ben...@access.digex.net
Sergey Macheret
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos wrote:
> Don't forget the SVT's other benefit; STEALTH :-). You could
> run me over with one and I'd still be thinking Avis...
You mean Hertz?
John Weir
Sergey Macheret (mach...@phoenix.princeton.edu) wrote:
: Spiros Triantafyllopoulos wrote:
: You mean Hertz?
You bet it would Hertz, and for a long time, too!
young steve
David Masten wrote:
>
> Not out yet? This is an eclectic list when you ponder it. Two hatches.
> Are they all four doors? Probably. That would make it a test of sporty
> 4-doors in the $20-25K range (not including options). And explain the
> choice of Jetta over GTi. And the no show of the BMW 318ti (a car I would
> have liked to have seen included).
>
A comparison between the BMW 318i and the Audi A4. 1.8 would be
interesting since they're direct competitors.
Steve Young
Greg Spark
In article <32FA86...@ican.net>, young steve
Been done several times already - the A4 creams it every time, especially
on quality. Lacks performance compared to 328i, but if that's important
the 1.8 turbo can be tuned into a M3 beater.
To be fair - the 3 series is now very long in the tooth (and it shows)
and knowing BMW, the replacement will be hard to head off. Meantime
Audi's running away with the cup (A4 outsold 3 series 1996 in Europe
despite lineball pricing.)
--
Greg Spark '96 A4 1.8Tq
spa...@wave.co.nz MTM 187hp
Hamilton, New Zealand 0-60mph 7.3s
Lloyd R. Parker
young steve (you...@ican.net) wrote:
: David Masten wrote:
: >
: > Not out yet? This is an eclectic list when you ponder it. Two hatches.
: > Are they all four doors? Probably. That would make it a test of sporty
: > 4-doors in the $20-25K range (not including options). And explain the
: > choice of Jetta over GTi. And the no show of the BMW 318ti (a car I would
: > have liked to have seen included).
: >
:
: A comparison between the BMW 318i and the Audi A4. 1.8 would be
: interesting since they're direct competitors.
:
: Steve Young
Since C/D has already picked the A4 2.8 over the 328i, wouldn't you
expect the A4 1.8T to be an easy winner over the 318i?
gpo...@msu.oscs.montana.edu
>Been done several times already - the A4 creams it every time, especially
>on quality. Lacks performance compared to 328i, but if that's important
>the 1.8 turbo can be tuned into a M3 beater.
To me the BMW "creams" the Audi in the looks department!
/\ /\/\
/ ^\/^\ /\ //\ \ MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Dept of Electrical Engr.
/ \___/^\// \ ^\_______________________________________________________
Paul O'Gorman - | 93 Explorer 4x4 / 86 Cougar GS 5.0
______________________________________|________________________________________
It is too late for the pebbles to vote, as the avelanche has already started.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos
gpo...@msu.oscs.montana.edu wrote:
: >Been done several times already - the A4 creams it every time, especially
: >on quality. Lacks performance compared to 328i, but if that's important
: >the 1.8 turbo can be tuned into a M3 beater.
: To me the BMW "creams" the Audi in the looks department!
Absolutely; on the other hand, considering the general craze of
the population with status objects, I'd be a lot more concerned
about looks than pleased with them.
David Masten
Back to the subject...
FINALLY got my C&D yesterday (where's my R&T??). Came across extremely
underwhelmed by the Contour SVT. Guess I was hoping they'd do something
nice with the styling. IMHO, they didn't. Switched an unattractive but
distinctive front for a unattractive, bulbous, land-yacht-like front. And
added the usual americana for sports car, ie tacky side skirts. Well, at
least they did avoid the other obvious addon, a spoiler. I know this is
just one man's opinion. I do like the dash more than the SE's. The black,
at least in photos, hides the plasticky nature of the ones I've sat in. As
to the mechanicals, hard to say without driving it. Guess I'm not that
positive on the choice of Honda-esque high RPM hp and torque. Though if it
is as smooth as the Lude's, not necessarily a bad thing. The price is also
scary. The Contour had one big thing going for it: it is the cheapest
6-cyl, 5 speed around which boasts driver's car credentials and space for 4
(at least reasonable space). The SVT probably won't have the cut-throat
competition pricing of the other models. So at $23K, it is no bargain. At
that point, I'd probably chose any of the other cars in the competition over
it. And for those who keep score, although it finished third, it was closer
to the back of the pack than to the front-runners. Scratch this one off the
list of cars I'll pretend I'm thinking about buying :-)
PS: does anyone really like the VW's steering wheel?
gpo...@msu.oscs.montana.edu
>FINALLY got my C&D yesterday (where's my R&T??).
Yeah, mine came VERY late!
>Came across extremely
>underwhelmed by the Contour SVT.
YOu gots that right!
>Guess I was hoping they'd do something
>nice with the styling. IMHO, they didn't. Switched an unattractive but
>distinctive front for a unattractive, bulbous, land-yacht-like front. And
>added the usual americana for sports car, ie tacky side skirts. Well, at
>least they did avoid the other obvious addon, a spoiler. I know this is
>just one man's opinion.
I like the new front end. It makes it more distinctive (IMHO). I dont quite
agree with the side moulding though. The thing that dissapoints me is the
engine. The stock 2.5 has 170hp, and while it is nice that they got it to
195hp, I dont find this spectacular. I have a freind with an SE and has
estimated it at around 190hp with a very nice custom exhaust/header system,
better flowing intake (ie filter), and some other cost eefective perf mods...
He has spent no where near $23k on the entire car (bought it for $17k, put
about $2k into it). I know that the SVT comes with some suspension tweeks, but
not that many. I guess I expect too much, but from SVT i think that they could
do a bit better (maybe 225hp! :).
>The Contour had one big thing going for it: it is the cheapest
>6-cyl, 5 speed around which boasts driver's car credentials and space for 4
>(at least reasonable space). The SVT probably won't have the cut-throat
>competition pricing of the other models.
It still is the cheapest in its class.....And you can still get the SE, or even
a GL with the regular 170hp V-6......
>So at $23K, it is no bargain.
Better bargain than the $26,990 (kbb.com) Saab 900S they tested (C&D that
is)....
>that point, I'd probably chose any of the other cars in the competition over
>it. And for those who keep score, although it finished third, it was closer
>to the back of the pack than to the front-runners. Scratch this one off the
>list of cars I'll pretend I'm thinking about buying :-)
Id still rather have the Contour SVT over some of the other cars they tested.
While the A4 1.8T is nice mechanically, I find its styling blah. and I still
dont like that funny looking fron end on the Integra (those round lamps, and
the akward looking plastic/metal joint).......
I think I will still shoot for an SE. To me the SVT just would not be worth the
increased insurance, and price tag......atleast not until they put 225hp in it
:)
Joshua Turner
snip
> I think I will still shoot for an SE. To me the SVT just would not be worth the
> increased insurance, and price tag......atleast not until they put 225hp in it
> :)
Amen. God, how many times is Ford going to get my hopes up, and then end
up by producing an underwhelming product far short of it's potential?
Consider--in 93 I heard tales of a new Mustang that would eat Camaros
for breakfast. I spent 12 months telling Chevy freaks "yeah, just wait
till the SN95 comes out..." And then we got a 302 w/ hp identical to the
previous year's...
And then the 4.6 was supposed to put the fire back in the Mustang's
belly. And when *it* arrived, whaddya know, 215 hp. Gee, that sounds
famaliar.
Oh, there's the DOHC Cobra--but that's limited production, and around
here at least, I can't find a single dealer selling them for less than
30K. And no A-plan. As far as I'm concerned, the damn Cobra is a sop to
quiet the howls of the Mustang fans--it allows us to bring *something*
up in discussions w/ the bowtie crowd. But it's not enough, dammit. I
want a Mustang, a normal, cheap Mustang, that can stay w/ a g-damn Z28.
Like the old days.
How many of you were happy when you heard they were putting a V8 in the
SHO? Visions of the Lincoln Continental's "InTech" danced in my head.
But what we (specifically, I) got is a 3.4L underacheiver that can't
keep up with a blown GM 3.8 V6, for chrissake. And no stick, as though
that wound needed a little salt.
Now, once again, Ford has led enthusiasts down the primrose path. Still
bitter about the SHO, I for one (and many others, I'm sure) pinned our
hopes on the Contour SVT. And what do we freakin get? A Contour SE with
25 more horsepower stashed away in the upper reaches of the rev range,
ugly ass side skirts, a nose that looks grafted on (and stolen from a
carp at that), a 23K pricetag, and, to top it all off, only 5000 of them
a year.
What pisses me off most about this is that all of the aforementioned
products could be so much better, and all it would take is a few measly
horsepower. I honestly believe that FoMoCo makes the best cars overall
of any of the Big Three, but they all have (to coin a term C/D used to
describe the Saturn) "The Flaw". Alex, Jaq, are you listening? GIVE US
MORE POWER.
Joshua Turner
97 Taurus SHO
young steve
gpo...@msu.oscs.montana.edu wrote:
>
> >Been done several times already - the A4 creams it every time, especially
> >on quality. Lacks performance compared to 328i, but if that's important
> >the 1.8 turbo can be tuned into a M3 beater.
>
> To me the BMW "creams" the Audi in the looks department!
>
I completely agree. The A4's front looks like a bloated version of any
Audi of the past 15-20 years and the A4's rear looks like a rounder
version (and copied from) the current BMW 3-series (E36). The E36 has a
classic look despite the style being about 7 years old. Don't get me
wrong, I like the A4's looks (and I would seriously consider the car if
I were currently in the market), but let's wait 7 years and see if it
looks as good as the E36 does now.
Insofar as acceleration is concerned, the A4 is adequate and at about 8
clicks to 60 it can't "cream" anyone - not even a Neon/Civic/Escort
econocar. Based on what I've read (only), it appears that the A4 1.8L
is, for all intents and purposes, just as fast off the line as the A4
2.8L. That being the case, I cannot justify paying the about $5K more
for the 2.8L. Sure 1.8L is a little nosier under hard acceleration, but
then how often do you accelerate hard? Under most driving conditions,
you're likely to be maintaining speed in which case the noise
differential isn't worth the few thousand dollar premium.
With respect to a tuned A4 1.8L being a M3 beater, I suppose with enough
add-ons I can tune a Civic Si so that it would cream the A4; but even so
it's still no A4 by any stretch of the imagination. Similarly, a beefed
up A4 is no M3 by a long shot.
Steve Young
RMoburg
On Sun, 09 Feb 1997 23:26:49 -0500, Joshua Turner <sh...@umich.edu>
wrote:
>snip
>
>> I think I will still shoot for an SE. To me the SVT just would not be worth the
>> increased insurance, and price tag......atleast not until they put 225hp in it
>> :)
>
>
>
>
>Amen. God, how many times is Ford going to get my hopes up, and then end
>up by producing an underwhelming product far short of it's potential?
IMO the thing the V6 Contour needed, more than anything, was some
bottom end torque. It comes on very strong at 3K but is too soft at
tip in. So what do they do? Increase the top end and leave the low
grunt as soft as ever. Then, I would guess, increase the weight of the
car just to make it a little slower off the line.
>
>How many of you were happy when you heard they were putting a V8 in the
>SHO? Visions of the Lincoln Continental's "InTech" danced in my head.
>But what we (specifically, I) got is a 3.4L underacheiver that can't
>keep up with a blown GM 3.8 V6, for chrissake. And no stick, as though
>that wound needed a little salt.
And again they forgot what means so much. Low end grunt or "tip in"
>Now, once again, Ford has led enthusiasts down the primrose path. Still
>bitter about the SHO, I for one (and many others, I'm sure) pinned our
>hopes on the Contour SVT. And what do we freakin get? A Contour SE with
>25 more horsepower stashed away in the upper reaches of the rev range,
>ugly ass side skirts, a nose that looks grafted on (and stolen from a
>carp at that), a 23K pricetag, and, to top it all off, only 5000 of them
>a year.
I wonder why they couldn't put a 3.0 in the Contour and then improve
the breathing on that car?
I think the SVT "Team" should come clean and just admit they are
mostly a marketing group that has had their hands tied from any real
development.
BTW I'm getting ready to trade the Mark VIII (which actually has been
a great road car) I was eagerly waiting for the SHO....... Now not a
chance.
>What pisses me off most about this is that all of the aforementioned
>products could be so much better, and all it would take is a few measly
>horsepower. I honestly believe that FoMoCo makes the best cars overall
>of any of the Big Three, but they all have (to coin a term C/D used to
>describe the Saturn) "The Flaw". Alex, Jaq, are you listening? GIVE US
>MORE POWER.
Josh,
I have Mark VIII which is a great engine waiting for a better car, and
my wife has a Mystique which is a great car waiting for a better
engine. (Actually the 2.5 is a superb engine just needing some bottom
end)
Ron Katona
young steve wrote:
> I completely agree. The A4's front looks like a bloated version of any
> Audi of the past 15-20 years and the A4's rear looks like a rounder
> version (and copied from) the current BMW 3-series (E36). The E36 has a
> classic look despite the style being about 7 years old. Don't get me
> wrong, I like the A4's looks (and I would seriously consider the car if
> I were currently in the market), but let's wait 7 years and see if it
> looks as good as the E36 does now.
>
> Insofar as acceleration is concerned, the A4 is adequate and at about 8
> clicks to 60 it can't "cream" anyone - not even a Neon/Civic/Escort
> econocar. Based on what I've read (only), it appears that the A4 1.8L
> is, for all intents and purposes, just as fast off the line as the A4
> 2.8L. That being the case, I cannot justify paying the about $5K more
> for the 2.8L. Sure 1.8L is a little nosier under hard acceleration, but
> then how often do you accelerate hard? Under most driving conditions,
> you're likely to be maintaining speed in which case the noise
> differential isn't worth the few thousand dollar premium.
>
> With respect to a tuned A4 1.8L being a M3 beater, I suppose with enough
> add-ons I can tune a Civic Si so that it would cream the A4; but even so
> it's still no A4 by any stretch of the imagination. Similarly, a beefed
> up A4 is no M3 by a long shot.
>
> Steve Young
Actually, the E36 came out as a 1992, so it's only 5 years old. I agree
100% with the rest of your points.
--
Ron Katona ro...@cris.com
88 Mustang LX 5.0
97 BMW 318ti
Steve Sheldon
On Sun, 09 Feb 1997 19:35:33 GMT, gpo...@msu.oscs.montana.edu wrote:
>>FINALLY got my C&D yesterday (where's my R&T??).
>
>Yeah, mine came VERY late!
I finally started receiving C/D again after about 6 months of
nothing... Not sure what happened.
>>Came across extremely
>>underwhelmed by the Contour SVT.
>
>YOu gots that right!
I'm glad they did it.
>>Guess I was hoping they'd do something
>>nice with the styling. IMHO, they didn't. Switched an unattractive but
>>distinctive front for a unattractive, bulbous, land-yacht-like front. And
>>added the usual americana for sports car, ie tacky side skirts. Well, at
>>least they did avoid the other obvious addon, a spoiler. I know this is
>>just one man's opinion.
I don't know, I think it's an improvement over the current Contour
styling. I'll want to see one up close.
>I like the new front end. It makes it more distinctive (IMHO). I dont quite
>agree with the side moulding though. The thing that dissapoints me is the
>engine. The stock 2.5 has 170hp, and while it is nice that they got it to
>195hp, I dont find this spectacular. I have a freind with an SE and has
>estimated it at around 190hp with a very nice custom exhaust/header system,
>better flowing intake (ie filter), and some other cost eefective perf mods...
>He has spent no where near $23k on the entire car (bought it for $17k, put
>about $2k into it). I know that the SVT comes with some suspension tweeks, but
>not that many. I guess I expect too much, but from SVT i think that they could
>do a bit better (maybe 225hp! :).
I don't know... read the Acura Integra Type-R review on page 87.
They boosted their engine from 170 hp to 195 hp. But the way they
made the big improvements was by lightening the whole car.
I think I'd rather have a Ford Contour SVT, as I'm wanting
performance and my little luxuries. I think it is priced a bit high,
but then it may very likely be discounted.
As far as the other cars are concerned. I felt they were right on
with the Jetta and Saab. Compared to the other cars the Integra does
look really quite bland.
I haven't driven an Audi, but I must say I have been very impressed
with the styling of the ones I've seen passing my Integra. :)
Steve
'94 Integra LS
Lloyd R. Parker
Steve Sheldon (she...@visi.com) wrote:
: I don't know, I think it's an improvement over the current Contour
: styling. I'll want to see one up close.
Well, I think there's a roving band of gypsy stylists. First they did
the Scorpio for Ford of Europe. Then they moved to the US and did the
current Taurus/Sable. Now they've done the front of the Contour. It's
like mad cow disease -- mad Ford stylist disease!
These stylists are no doubt descended from those that did the Datsun B210
and F10.
Joshua Turner
Brad Sloan wrote:
>
> On Sun, 9 Feb 1997, Joshua Turner wrote:
>
> > Amen. God, how many times is Ford going to get my hopes up, and then end
> > up by producing an underwhelming product far short of it's potential?
>
> incredible show car (Still waiting for my Ranger SHO)
Or the Windstar SHO, but I suppose the current 200 hp 3.8 in that car is
ridiculous enough.
, like this new
> Explorer with the 5V 4.6L, then put the car on the shelf and soldier on
> with mundane car after mundane car? If I remember right, the Profile
> concept car had 225 hp. Were'd the 30 hp go?
Into the ether. Didn't the Profile also have AWD, or am I hallucinating?
> And why is Ford even messing with 5V when they aren't even
> tapping the full potential of the 4V?
I don't know--one thing that the engine has done is whip the readers of
rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang into a frenzy though. Ha. Whatever. Does
Ford need to build a 5V Mustang Cobra? NO. They need to build a Mustang
GT with some balls. (Though if the plan is to put the 5V in the Cobra to
differentiate it from a new, more powerful and still inexpensive GT,
then I'm all for it. But I'm not holding my breath).
>
> > How many of you were happy when you heard they were putting a V8 in the
> > SHO? Visions of the Lincoln Continental's "InTech" danced in my head.
> > But what we (specifically, I) got is a 3.4L underacheiver that can't
> > keep up with a blown GM 3.8 V6, for chrissake. And no stick, as though
> > that wound needed a little salt.
>
> I wasn't that happy when I found out about the V8. First, there
> wasn't a thing wrong with the V6. In fact at the time, and still today,
> it was one of teh world's best V6's. Also, a 60 deg. V8 sounded kind of
> weird to me anyway.
Guess Ford thought that the SHO engine wasn't far enough away from the
3.0 Duratec--in a way, I suppose, they're right, but the answer IMO was
not to blow all that devpt. money on an ineffectual V8. What's wrong
with the 4.6? Space? Plant capacity? I honestly don'e know. BUT, if Ford
produced a stick in that car, it would improve the cars image
dramatically, in two important ways. First, it would stop me, and all of
the other Taurus SHO enthusiasts and cognoscnenti out there, from
constantly bitching about it. Second, car rags like C/D would all test
the manual version, and the performance numbers from that car would be
the ones that everyone remembered and quoted. The stigma of being slower
than a GP would disappear, and we could all hold our heads up high
again. Also, a 5-speed would cut taxes, balance the budget, increase
social spending, provide a strong defense, and craft a brilliant foreign
policy. Sorry. Getting a little carried away.
> > describe the Saturn) "The Flaw". Alex, Jaq, are you listening? GIVE US
> > MORE POWER.
> > Joshua Turner
> > 97 Taurus SHO
>
> Yeah, or his next .sig will be "98 Grand Prix GTP."
Well, I wouldn't go that far. But I do like the looks of "98 Audi A4",
or even
"98 Volvo V70 T5".
RMoburg
On 11 Feb 1997 13:37:08 -0500, lpa...@larry.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R.
Parker) wrote:
As much as Lloyd and I have argued (clashed?) about the mechanicals of
Chrysler vs. Ford I couldn't agree more that the stylists should be
locked up for impersonating .....well...... stylists.
Some people have said the new Taurus will grow on you just like the
old one did. Well I don't think so because it is flat out ugly...
Same thing with the Contour (I think Mystique is slightly better) only
this time they were going for the Hertz non-descript look.
And this from a long time Ford supporter.
Joshua Turner
snip
> Some people have said the new Taurus will grow on you just like the
> old one did. Well I don't think so because it is flat out ugly...
>
> Same thing with the Contour (I think Mystique is slightly better) only
> this time they were going for the Hertz non-descript look.
> And this from a long time Ford supporter.
Yeah, it's like watching a friend become an alcoholic. All you feel is
sorrow, pain, anger, and helplessness. Anyone now how to do an
intervention on a major corporation?
Shawn P. Church
Joshua Turner wrote:
> Yeah, it's like watching a friend become an alcoholic. All you feel is
> sorrow, pain, anger, and helplessness. Anyone now how to do an
> intervention on a major corporation?
Leveraged buyout ;-)
Eric Bin
Joshua Turner <sh...@umich.edu> writes:
>Yeah, it's like watching a friend become an alcoholic. All you feel is
>sorrow, pain, anger, and helplessness. Anyone now how to do an
>intervention on a major corporation?
Are we talking about something on the lines of what happened in
Seinfeld?
>Joshua Turner
>97 Taurus SHO
--
Eric Bin
eb...@sfu.ca
President of the Unofficial Luc Longley Internet Fan Club
Season Update: Bulls w/ Luc: 23-3. Bulls w/o Luc: 19-3.
Eric Bin
lpa...@larry.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
>Well, I think there's a roving band of gypsy stylists. First they did
>the Scorpio for Ford of Europe. Then they moved to the US and did the
>current Taurus/Sable. Now they've done the front of the Contour. It's
>like mad cow disease -- mad Ford stylist disease!
>These stylists are no doubt descended from those that did the Datsun B210
>and F10.
I'm agreed with Lloyd on this one. I saw the 98 Contour/Mystique and
gawd, they are so ugly!!!! The Mystique was the more appalling of the two
though.
dv
Rod wrote:
<other irrelevant stuff snipped>
> Wasnt sales of the 2000GT not so good when it was out?
2000GT?!? Never heard of it, who makes it? Thanks.
David Masten
In article <5dqsk1$t...@morgoth.sfu.ca>, eb...@sfu.ca (Eric Bin) wrote:
>lpa...@larry.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
>>These stylists are no doubt descended from those that did the Datsun B210
>>and F10.
Damn, I had finally forgotten the F10 and you had to bring it up. What an
abomination. Datsun/Nissan sure has its ups and (currently, IMHO) downs.
>I'm agreed with Lloyd on this one. I saw the 98 Contour/Mystique and
>gawd, they are so ugly!!!!
Amazing. We're all actually siding with Mr Parker!
What's worse is all you have to do is flip a few pages, and there's a
terrific styling job done on the new Intrepid and Concorde.
Your Bud Wes
Greg Spark (spa...@wave.co.nz) wrote:
: In article <32FA86...@ican.net>, young steve
: <URL:mailto:you...@ican.net> wrote:
: >
: > David Masten wrote:
: > >
: > > Not out yet? This is an eclectic list when you ponder it. Two hatches.
: > > Are they all four doors? Probably. That would make it a test of sporty
: > > 4-doors in the $20-25K range (not including options). And explain the
: > > choice of Jetta over GTi. And the no show of the BMW 318ti (a car I would
: > > have liked to have seen included).
: > >
: >
: > A comparison between the BMW 318i and the Audi A4. 1.8 would be
: > interesting since they're direct competitors.
: >
: > Steve Young
: Been done several times already - the A4 creams it every time, especially
: on quality. Lacks performance compared to 328i, but if that's important
: the 1.8 turbo can be tuned into a M3 beater.
: To be fair - the 3 series is now very long in the tooth (and it shows)
: and knowing BMW, the replacement will be hard to head off. Meantime
: Audi's running away with the cup (A4 outsold 3 series 1996 in Europe
: despite lineball pricing.)
: --
: Greg Spark '96 A4 1.8Tq
: spa...@wave.co.nz MTM 187hp
: Hamilton, New Zealand 0-60mph 7.3s
--
---
Wes Y. Keller
Engineering Services
i i
.lll. .lll.
..illllllli..illllllli..
c i s c o S y s t e m s
San Jose, California
Marc
mas...@frontiernet.net (David Masten) wrote:
>In article <5dqsk1$t...@morgoth.sfu.ca>, eb...@sfu.ca (Eric Bin) wrote:
>>lpa...@larry.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
>>>These stylists are no doubt descended from those that did the Datsun B210
>>>and F10.
>Damn, I had finally forgotten the F10 and you had to bring it up. What an
>abomination. Datsun/Nissan sure has its ups and (currently, IMHO) downs.
No 300ZX, no car in the line-up with more than 190hp, and that one has
reverted back to a live axle. The sportiest car in the line (240SX)
gets 8-second 0-60. Although I've heard a rumor that the Sentra may
get the 2.0 in the 4-door, which would make up for any posible
shortcomings in the rest of the line.
Marc
(the guy who owns a Nissan, who wouldn't buy a car they currently
make, although I really love the looks of the 240, and the fact it is
RWD, but it has less power than my 10 yr old 200SX)
Gerald Yen-Wei Chen
Distribution:
: I don't know--one thing that the engine has done is whip the readers of
: rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang into a frenzy though. Ha. Whatever. Does
: Ford need to build a 5V Mustang Cobra? NO. They need to build a Mustang
: GT with some balls. (Though if the plan is to put the 5V in the Cobra to
Why though? I've heard that the Mustang GT's have been selling better than
the Camaro Z28's anyways. Since the Camaro's have the obvious performance
advantage, it's clear that buyers are looking for more than all out
performance. Plus, the aftermarket for Mustangs is growing pretty quick as
well.
Gerald
Your Bud Wes
Greg Spark (spa...@wave.co.nz) wrote:
: >
: > A comparison between the BMW 318i and the Audi A4. 1.8 would be
: > interesting since they're direct competitors.
: >
: > Steve Young
: Been done several times already - the A4 creams it every time, especially
: on quality. Lacks performance compared to 328i, but if that's important
: the 1.8 turbo can be tuned into a M3 beater.
: To be fair - the 3 series is now very long in the tooth (and it shows)
: and knowing BMW, the replacement will be hard to head off. Meantime
: Audi's running away with the cup (A4 outsold 3 series 1996 in Europe
: despite lineball pricing.)
Hrm. I was recently looking at Audis and BMW's. Sure, the Beemer (don't
call it bimmer!) is showing some age. It's classic style will keep
it attractive even after they introduce the new body.
The A4 loss out to the 328i in CAR magazine. It also lost out to the
328i in all the track tests, and every area of performance. Hardly a
creaming. The Audi's good looks and decent handling, coupled with it's
Quattro, makes it a good car. However, if you want sport, it may not
be the right choice as you've got to spend several thousand dollars
just to get it to compete with underpowered mustangs.
As far as quality goes; you are kidding, right? BMW has a long history
of quality. How many people do you know say, "Isn't that
the car that lunges forward and kills people by itself?"
I know I, personally, never hear that. Audi still has a long row to hoe.
--
Wes Keller '95 BMW M3(No CA emissions as I got it out of state)
chupa...@cisco.com 260 HP
San Jose, CA 0-60mph 5.9
(The best part is it cost me about as much as a new 2.8 Quattro)
: --
: Greg Spark '96 A4 1.8Tq
: spa...@wave.co.nz MTM 187hp
: Hamilton, New Zealand 0-60mph 7.3s
--
| / / Wes Y. Keller (5277191) |
| /// /// Engineering (ES) |
| .//////////. San Jose, CA, USA |
| ciscoSystems wyk/chupa...@cisco.com |
Ron Katona
Hiok-tiaq Ng wrote:
> What many people don't realize is that the BMW can be pushed to
> great limits, but this is mostly done in ideal conditions.
> In the real world, Quattro is a significant advantage that arguably
> makes the A4 a better car and makes it easier to reach the
> limits of a driver's skill. IMHO.
Stable, predictable handling at the limit has always been a hallmark of
the E36. An M3 can make anyone look like pro. Do you mean in snow? In
most "real world" conditions in North America, there's no snow on the
road. There are many things people might dislike about a BMW, but
reaching the limits of the driver's skill is probably the least of them.
> BMW quality? Well, remember the recalls that BMW had to
> make early in the life of the E36 3 series? Bad interior
> workmanship? Unintended acceleration was never Audi's
> problem. Audi was never held liable in any single case
> of alleged unintended acceleration.
The whole unintended acceleration thing was a crime against Audi. It was
never proven. I'm not sure how many "recalls" there were, if any, on the
E36. There were a number of TSBs, but that's fairly typical of a new
model. Audi certainly has their share.
>
> True BMW enthusiasts should welcome the challenge of Audi,
> since competition improves the breed. Poseurs will of
> course dislike BMW's image quotient being challenged.
> That's why I find it puzzling that instead of dissecting
> what the Audi does well, some people have been highlighting
> what the A4 does not do well compared to the BMW.
>
> Something to think about.
I agree! What's interesting to me is how Audi fans call the E36 old, or
long in the tooth, but they are so willing to point out the Audi's
strengths compared to it. What does that say? It says that BMW was
building cars 5 years ago that are very close to what Audi's best has to
offer today!
You're right though. I'm glad Audi offered 3/36 free maintenance in '96,
BMW matched it for '97. Hopefully BMW will match some of the other
features offered by Audi, Lexus, etc. I really hope that a BMW remains a
BMW, with the emphasis on performance and feel over cupholders and
packaging.
Henri Helanto
dv <dr...@lehigh.edu> writes:
>Rod wrote:
>
>> Wasnt sales of the 2000GT not so good when it was out?
> 2000GT?!? Never heard of it, who makes it? Thanks.
Toyota 2000GT, probably the worst-selling sports car in the
history of automobile. If I remember correctly, only a handful
(~10) of them still exist and every other jap-sportscar-collector
wants one badly ($200k+ -badly). Some think it was a beautiful
car but IMHO it looks like a banana with wheels...
-Henri
--
###### Henri Helanto ### he...@muncca.fi / hhel...@cc.hut.fi
##### Architecture Major #### Nissan Skyline GT-R 'Janspeed Special'
#### Net Admin ##### '71 LS-6 454 Corvette Coupe
### Sports Car Enthusiast ###### Subaru Legacy Turbo STW (my wife's car ;-)
Hiok-tiaq Ng
In article <wykE5I...@netcom.com>, Your Bud Wes <w...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Greg Spark (spa...@wave.co.nz) wrote:
>: Been done several times already - the A4 creams it every time, especially
>: on quality. Lacks performance compared to 328i, but if that's important
>: the 1.8 turbo can be tuned into a M3 beater.
>
>: To be fair - the 3 series is now very long in the tooth (and it shows)
>: and knowing BMW, the replacement will be hard to head off. Meantime
>: Audi's running away with the cup (A4 outsold 3 series 1996 in Europe
>: despite lineball pricing.)
>
>Hrm. I was recently looking at Audis and BMW's. Sure, the Beemer (don't
>call it bimmer!) is showing some age. It's classic style will keep
>it attractive even after they introduce the new body.
Styling is a subjective issue, so it is a pandora's box.
>The A4 loss out to the 328i in CAR magazine. It also lost out to the
>328i in all the track tests, and every area of performance. Hardly a
>creaming. The Audi's good looks and decent handling, coupled with it's
>Quattro, makes it a good car. However, if you want sport, it may not
>be the right choice as you've got to spend several thousand dollars
>just to get it to compete with underpowered mustangs.
The A4 1.8Tq scored better than the 328i in CAR. It was a major
6 car test(Dec 95? Not too sure), and they said that the 328i was
dethroned, but in another article in CAR, some other journalist
preferred the BMW.
What many people don't realize is that the BMW can be pushed to
great limits, but this is mostly done in ideal conditions.
In the real world, Quattro is a significant advantage that arguably
makes the A4 a better car and makes it easier to reach the
limits of a driver's skill. IMHO.
>As far as quality goes; you are kidding, right? BMW has a long history
>of quality. How many people do you know say, "Isn't that
>the car that lunges forward and kills people by itself?"
>I know I, personally, never hear that. Audi still has a long row to hoe.
BMW quality? Well, remember the recalls that BMW had to
make early in the life of the E36 3 series? Bad interior
workmanship? Unintended acceleration was never Audi's
problem. Audi was never held liable in any single case
of alleged unintended acceleration.
True BMW enthusiasts should welcome the challenge of Audi,
since competition improves the breed. Poseurs will of
course dislike BMW's image quotient being challenged.
That's why I find it puzzling that instead of dissecting
what the Audi does well, some people have been highlighting
what the A4 does not do well compared to the BMW.
Something to think about.
Your Bud Wes
Hiok-tiaq Ng (ht...@guano.ece.orst.edu) wrote:
: In article <wykE5I...@netcom.com>, Your Bud Wes <w...@netcom.com> wrote:
: >
: >Hrm. I was recently looking at Audis and BMW's. Sure, the Beemer (don't
: >call it bimmer!) is showing some age. It's classic style will keep
: >it attractive even after they introduce the new body.
: Styling is a subjective issue, so it is a pandora's box.
True. But like everyone else here, I had to put my 2 cents in(or
was that 45,000 dollars?)
: The A4 1.8Tq scored better than the 328i in CAR. It was a major
: 6 car test(Dec 95? Not too sure), and they said that the 328i was
: dethroned, but in another article in CAR, some other journalist
: preferred the BMW.
Exactly. However, I was leaning towards the performance comparison
myself.
: What many people don't realize is that the BMW can be pushed to
: great limits, but this is mostly done in ideal conditions.
: In the real world, Quattro is a significant advantage that arguably
In the real world, I have no problems pushing this M3 to it's limits.
It has extremely predictable handling and unmatched feedback. I have
gotten to the point where I can tell exactly when the wheels are
going to start chirping.
: makes the A4 a better car and makes it easier to reach the
: limits of a driver's skill. IMHO.
For foul weather, the Audi is unbeatable(this includes rain).
However, foul weather is a rarity here in California. So rare
that when it does rain(or friggin flood like it has lately) we
have no problems slowing down a bit. There's plenty of sun to
go around later. It was 68 degrees(according to my M3's external
thermostat) and sunny today in San Jose. How about there?
: BMW quality? Well, remember the recalls that BMW had to
: make early in the life of the E36 3 series? Bad interior
: workmanship? Unintended acceleration was never Audi's
: problem. Audi was never held liable in any single case
: of alleged unintended acceleration.
I meant that I never have to answer the question. Everyone whom
I have met has done nothing but praise my BMW(Especially those
that have ridden in it). BUT - everyone that I knew that I asked
about Audi's when I was looking at them brought up the "sudden
accelleration" incident. While I know it was likely the foolishness
of the drivers that were at fault, it still is something Audi has
to live down. I will never have to field the question again myself.
: True BMW enthusiasts should welcome the challenge of Audi,
: since competition improves the breed. Poseurs will of
: course dislike BMW's image quotient being challenged.
: That's why I find it puzzling that instead of dissecting
: what the Audi does well, some people have been highlighting
: what the A4 does not do well compared to the BMW.
You have a point. You'll notice the M3 now has Traction control and
a similar warranty to Audi's. That's a good thing. You'll also
notice that no Audi really comes close to a BMW M3 for performance.
But most of all you'll notice the M3 costs 20k more than the base
Quattro 1.8TQ. If Audi wants to be a player and get true performance
recognition, they need to come out with a 35,000$ M3 beater.
Something like a 2 litre, high pressure turbo pumping out 250HPs
to a Quattro controlling 6 speed would make them performance car
gods. Yet, even with Audi's vast Vorsprung durch Tecnik, it doesn't
have a true sports car model(in the US, at least). I spent several
months considering which one to buy. I ALMOST got an AMG C36! So, I
am actually of the opinion that at 35k, this M3 is a bargain.
However, the Audi is a brilliant car. Given a true (not half hearted)
sport package that gave you tighter suspension, 17" wheels, Quattro,
250+ hp's, and perhaps some aero effects, you'd have a nice car.
As it stands, it's a good car.
: Something to think about.
: Tiaq
: ht...@ece.orst.edu
Pete Wilson
Your Bud Wes wrote:
>
>
> Hrm. I was recently looking at Audis and BMW's. Sure, the Beemer (don't
> call it bimmer!) is showing some age. It's classic style will keep
> it attractive even after they introduce the new body.
>
The UK mag Autocar was running shots of the new 3-series this week.
Looks very much like a smaller 5-series. Very evolutionary since it's
not that different to the E36.
Over here we'll get the new saloon in mid '98, with the coupe's etc
to follow. The new M3 will be available in '99 and is supposed to
have 330bhp. Just about the time I'll be ready to change my current
one, nice!
--Pete--
'96 M3 Evolution Coupe
and others...
--------
Lloyd R. Parker
Your Bud Wes (w...@netcom.com) wrote:
:
: The A4 loss out to the 328i in CAR magazine.
I thought it was CAR that proclaimed on its cover last year "A4 beats
3-series."
: It also lost out to the
: 328i in all the track tests, and every area of performance.
Too bad they're not competing in the "sports car" category.
: Hardly a
: creaming. The Audi's good looks and decent handling, coupled with it's
: Quattro, makes it a good car. However, if you want sport, it may not
: be the right choice as you've got to spend several thousand dollars
: just to get it to compete with underpowered mustangs.
How much do you need to spend on the 328 to make its interior competitive
with other $35,000 cars? Or to make its wet and winter traction
competitive with the Audi? Or its looks?
:
: As far as quality goes; you are kidding, right? BMW has a long history
: of quality.
Actually, a number of cars have better reliabilities than BMW.
: How many people do you know say, "Isn't that
: the car that lunges forward and kills people by itself?"
: I know I, personally, never hear that. Audi still has a long row to hoe.
And the BMW 325 was the ONLY car to ever fail the gov't-mandated crash
test. Perhaps if "60 Minutes" had jumped on THAT....
Lloyd R. Parker
1. An M3 is now over $40,000, with some options.
2. If you think a car of that size, ride, and interior design is a
bargain at $35-40k, you and I have different ideas of "bargain."
Perhaps you consider an F16 to be a bargain too?
: However, the Audi is a brilliant car. Given a true (not half hearted)
: sport package that gave you tighter suspension, 17" wheels, Quattro,
: 250+ hp's, and perhaps some aero effects, you'd have a nice car.
: As it stands, it's a good car.
Maybe the Audi S6?
Gary Kercheck
>2. If you think a car of that size, ride, and interior design is a
>bargain at $35-40k, you and I have different ideas of "bargain."
No other manufacturer offers a sedan with the performance of the M3
for that kind of money - it qualifies as a bargain to most enthusiasts.
Then again, I'd expect this type of comment from a former mini-van
driver.
Joshua Turner
Lloyd R. Parker wrote:
>
> Your Bud Wes (w...@netcom.com) wrote:
> : am actually of the opinion that at 35k, this M3 is a bargain.
>
>
> 2. If you think a car of that size, ride, and interior design is a
> bargain at $35-40k, you and I have different ideas of "bargain."
>
North America doesn't sound too bad. I wouldn't necessarily call it a
"bargain", but it's certainly a better deal than many German sport
sedans.
> Perhaps you consider an F16 to be a bargain too?
Yeah, actually I do. Course, as individual transportation it's a bit
pricey, but for a multi-role jet fighter/bomber, it's not bad. Funny
that you pick the F-16--it was actually designed to be a low-cost,
mission-capable alternative to the bigger F-15. Sort of the Mustang GT
of the military aircraft world.
Dave Beal
Marc wrote:
[ big snip ]
>
> Marc
> (the guy who owns a Nissan, who wouldn't buy a car they currently
> make, although I really love the looks of the 240, and the fact it is
> RWD, but it has less power than my 10 yr old 200SX)
Buy a '97 Prelude and drive in reverse.
It'll look and feel like a 240.
Your Bud Wes
Lloyd R. Parker (lpa...@larry.cc.emory.edu) wrote:
: Your Bud Wes (w...@netcom.com) wrote:
: : am actually of the opinion that at 35k, this M3 is a bargain.
: 1. An M3 is now over $40,000, with some options.
Actually, dealers here have no trouble selling the 97's at a $3,000+
markup over their invoice of nearly 43k loaded.
I was talking about my M3 back in 1995. $35k isn't so bad.
: 2. If you think a car of that size, ride, and interior design is a
: bargain at $35-40k, you and I have different ideas of "bargain."
This is, by far, the best car in it's class. Wait a sec. It's the
ONLY car in it's class here in the US. :)
: Perhaps you consider an F16 to be a bargain too?
Hrm..over, say, a fully loaded 117A. Yup. Just throw in the cell phone
hook up and I'm good to go. I hope 92 octane will work. :)
: : However, the Audi is a brilliant car. Given a true (not half hearted)
: : sport package that gave you tighter suspension, 17" wheels, Quattro,
: : 250+ hp's, and perhaps some aero effects, you'd have a nice car.
: : As it stands, it's a good car.
: Maybe the Audi S6?
This vehicle isn't available in the US. However, for 43k, the BMW M3 is.
Vorschprung Durch BMW! What a bragain!(Although the sport 540i 6speed is
very tempting at a mere 12k more.)
This M3 rides better (read: smoother, more quiet) than anything else in
the sports car class. It handles as well or better while doing it(Barring
some corvettes and true 2 seater sports cars). It is faster than anything
BENZ, SAAB, Audi, and Volvo put together. It even handles better than the
Volvo 850R, yet rides far more smoothly. For the 40k price range, and the
quality interior(ahh this M3 spec leather is nice), with it's drop dead
gorgeous good looks, power, handling, and cool M3 badge, it's a bargain.
It is in a class by itself.
Brandon Sommerville
On 13 Feb 1997 10:39:11 -0500, lpa...@larry.cc.emory.edu
(Lloyd R. Parker) is accused of saying:
>Your Bud Wes (w...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: am actually of the opinion that at 35k, this M3 is a bargain.
>
>1. An M3 is now over $40,000, with some options.
>
>2. If you think a car of that size, ride, and interior design is a
>bargain at $35-40k, you and I have different ideas of "bargain."
Show me a comparably priced coupe that will seat 4 and
perform the way the M3 does. Your idea of bargain seems to
be based on the number of cupholders.
Is that why you like automatics so much? So you can take
full advantage of your cupholders?
>: However, the Audi is a brilliant car. Given a true (not half hearted)
>: sport package that gave you tighter suspension, 17" wheels, Quattro,
>: 250+ hp's, and perhaps some aero effects, you'd have a nice car.
>: As it stands, it's a good car.
>
>Maybe the Audi S6?
>
Or the RS2 Avant.
Brandon
You can only be young once,
but you can be immature forever.
Reid D Rivenburgh
>> Lloyd R Parker writes:
Wes> am actually of the opinion that at 35k, this M3 is a bargain.
LRP> 1. An M3 is now over $40,000, with some options.
That's right; even my '95 was over that. However...
LRP> 2. If you think a car of that size, ride, and interior design
LRP> is a bargain at $35-40k, you and I have different ideas of
LRP> "bargain."
Uh, Lloyd, have you ever even ridden in one? It rides relatively
nicely, thank you, considering its performance capabilities. And
would you mind telling me what other cars with a similar combination
of performance and practicality I should have looked at? This IS a
performance car; nice of you to jab it without even taking that into
account. "Its cupholders aren't big enough for a Big Gulp; I guess I
got screwed." Sheesh.
Wes> However, the Audi is a brilliant car. Given a true (not half
Wes> hearted) sport package that gave you tighter suspension, 17"
Wes> wheels, Quattro, 250+ hp's, and perhaps some aero effects,
Wes> you'd have a nice car. As it stands, it's a good car.
LRP> Maybe the Audi S6?
Can you buy those in the US (your mantra)? And how much does/would it
cost, and how does it perform? Honest questions there... It seems
like it would be in a different category (like competition for the
540), but I don't know much about it.
Reid
dv
> For foul weather, the Audi is unbeatable(this includes rain).
> However, foul weather is a rarity here in California. So rare
> that when it does rain(or friggin flood like it has lately) we
> have no problems slowing down a bit. There's plenty of sun to
> go around later. It was 68 degrees(according to my M3's external
> thermostat) and sunny today in San Jose. How about there?
Hey, you know, I really don't need you telling me about how sunny and
warm it was down in San Jose and all. YOu really have some nerve, don't
you. Well, here in Bethlehem PA, it was sunny, yeah, about the first
time in a month. THis place is the center of all evil, I swear, it's
never sunny here. Jerk, well, it doesn't matter 'cause I hate the sun
anyway, so there, HA!!!! What do you have to say now, huh??? (I'm only
kidding here, except about the part of Bethlehem being evil and all,
'cause it is) Ummmmmmm, warm weather, wish I could get me some of that
:-(
RMoburg
On Fri, 14 Feb 1997 00:48:24 -0500, dv <bl...@blah.blah> wrote:
> Hey, you know, I really don't need you telling me about how sunny and
>warm it was down in San Jose and all. YOu really have some nerve, don't
>you. Well, here in Bethlehem PA, it was sunny, yeah, about the first
>time in a month. THis place is the center of all evil, I swear, it's
>never sunny here. Jerk, well, it doesn't matter 'cause I hate the sun
>anyway, so there, HA!!!! What do you have to say now, huh??? (I'm only
>kidding here, except about the part of Bethlehem being evil and all,
>'cause it is) Ummmmmmm, warm weather, wish I could get me some of that
>:-(
>
Bethlehem may be bad (I used to live in Sparta NJ) but here in Chicago
the Vampires switch to day jobs during the Winter!
Lloyd R. Parker
Gary Kercheck (ga...@adicon0.adicon.com) wrote:
: lpa...@larry.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) wrote:
: >1. An M3 is now over $40,000, with some options.
:
: >2. If you think a car of that size, ride, and interior design is a
: >bargain at $35-40k, you and I have different ideas of "bargain."
:
: No other manufacturer offers a sedan with the performance of the M3
: for that kind of money - it qualifies as a bargain to most enthusiasts.
: Then again, I'd expect this type of comment from a former mini-van
: driver.
:
:
If they offered something in the $25,000-30,000 range, with the room not
be classified as a subcompact, with some amenities like tilt wheel, and
without the J C Whitney skirts, I'd be impressed and consider it a bargain.
Lloyd R. Parker
Brandon Sommerville (bra...@caseware.com) wrote:
: On 13 Feb 1997 10:39:11 -0500, lpa...@larry.cc.emory.edu: >: am actually of the opinion that at 35k, this M3 is a bargain.
: >
: >1. An M3 is now over $40,000, with some options.
: >
: >2. If you think a car of that size, ride, and interior design is a
: >bargain at $35-40k, you and I have different ideas of "bargain."
:
: perform the way the M3 does. Your idea of bargain seems to
: be based on the number of cupholders.
2 of those 4 had better be under the age of 6. And the other 2 had
better be on the slim side. Why not a compact instead of a subcompact,
BMW? How about a tilt wheel? How about a car without J C
Whitney-looking air dam and skirts? How about an interior that looks
richer than one on a $10,000 Neon?
Your idea of a car seems to be 0-60 and slalom times. Most people want more.
Even in a performance car.
Lloyd R. Parker
Joshua Turner (sh...@umich.edu) wrote:
: Lloyd R. Parker wrote:
: >
: > Your Bud Wes (w...@netcom.com) wrote:
: > : am actually of the opinion that at 35k, this M3 is a bargain.
: >
: > 1. An M3 is now over $40,000, with some options.
: >
: > 2. If you think a car of that size, ride, and interior design is a
: > bargain at $35-40k, you and I have different ideas of "bargain."
: >
: North America doesn't sound too bad. I wouldn't necessarily call it a
: "bargain", but it's certainly a better deal than many German sport
: sedans.
How about 40k for one of the smallest sedans in NA? $40k for a sub
compact? 40k for a car with not even a tilt wheel? 40k for a car with
an interior (OK, the 328, but the interior's the same) C/D said would be
an embarrassment in a car half the price?
Lloyd R. Parker
: the sports car class. It handles as well or better while doing it(Barring
: some corvettes and true 2 seater sports cars). It is faster than anything
: BENZ, SAAB, Audi, and Volvo put together. It even handles better than the
: Volvo 850R, yet rides far more smoothly. For the 40k price range, and the
: quality interior(ahh this M3 spec leather is nice), with it's drop dead
: gorgeous good looks, power, handling, and cool M3 badge, it's a bargain.
: It is in a class by itself.
The problems are:
1. It's tiny inside. It's a subcompact.
2. It looks like somebody's parody of J C Whitney air dams and skirts.
3. Quality interior? C/D said of the 328 (same interior) that the
interior would be embarrassing in a car half the price. I was certainly
not impressed with the 328 interior. And no tilt wheel? Door panels that
look like they could be off a Corolla? No in-dash CD player? No factory
CD player at all?
4. With automatic, it's not faster than an 850R. And I bet most M3s will
be sold with automatic, like most other sports cars (except Porsche and
Ferrari) are.
For that money, I'd take a Seville STS, or a 528, or an E320. Or, for
less, an ES300, a Millenia S, an 850 GLT, an A6 Quattro, or a Catera. Or
for even less, an Intrepid ES or a Maxima SE.
Lloyd R. Parker
Reid D Rivenburgh (re...@lanl.gov) wrote:
:
: Uh, Lloyd, have you ever even ridden in one?
I've test driven a 328; I imagine the M3 rides similarly, but a little
harsher due to its lower profile tires.
My idea of a bargain sedan is one that offers good room (the M3 doesn't),
features (tilt wheel, BMW? This isn't something invested yesterday.),
and good styling (now I know who bought J C Whitney's inventory of air
dams and skirts). And does all this for $25-32k. There are a lot of
cars, even performance cars, out there that fit the bill.
Andres Goldberg
<5e21ri$b...@larry.cc.emory.edu>:
Distribution:
Lloyd R. Parker (lpa...@larry.cc.emory.edu) wrote:
: The problems are:
: 1. It's tiny inside.
Are you kidding? Christ, how big are you? I'm 5'9' and 260# and I was
swimming in room in the drivers seat of the '97 I tested. My 6'5"
roommate fit comfortably in the passenger side (with the seat all the way
back) and there was still plenty of rear room. If you want something huge
inside that performs like an M3 get an Impala SS and tweak it out.
: 2. It looks like somebody's parody of J C Whitney air dams and skirts.
I think it look great. So what if it looks like a boy-racer? :)
: 3. Quality interior? C/D said of the 328 (same interior) that the
: interior would be embarrassing in a car half the price. I was certainly
: not impressed with the 328 interior. And no tilt wheel? Door panels that
: look like they could be off a Corolla? No in-dash CD player? No factory
: CD player at all?
I didn't mind the interior (haven't been in a 328, though) at all. Of
course my benchmark cars are an '89 240SX and a '91 Mitsu Galant. Plus in
dash single CD players bug me. Rip out the factory radio and put in an
aftermarket unit and 6/10/12 disc changer.
: 4. With automatic, it's not faster than an 850R. And I bet most M3s will
: be sold with automatic, like most other sports cars (except Porsche and
: Ferrari) are.
Most other sports cars are sold with an auto? In what country? Maybe most
luxury "sport" sedans, like a Lexus GS300 or similar are, but IMHO most
sports cars (like Firebirds, Mustangs, Camaros, Supra, etc) are sold with
a 5 speed. I *could* be wrong, though.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Andres Goldberg | gold...@db.erau.edu =
ABA Student Webmaster | http://erau.db.erau.edu/~goldbera =
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University | I don't speak for ERAU, only myself =
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ron Katona
Lloyd R. Parker wrote:
> My idea of a bargain sedan is one that offers good room (the M3 doesn't),
> features (tilt wheel, BMW? This isn't something invested yesterday.),
> and good styling (now I know who bought J C Whitney's inventory of air
> dams and skirts). And does all this for $25-32k. There are a lot of
> cars, even performance cars, out there that fit the bill.
A bargain sedan? Now we're comparing an M3 to a bargain sedan? The point
you clearly miss is that the M3 is a *performance* coupe/sedan, with the
emphasis placed obviously in performance areas. Despite that, the M3
remains far more useful than the 'vette, RX-7, Supra TT, 300ZX, or other
cars with which one might logically group the M3. Price also falls
midpack in that group.
If you choose to group it with the Maxima/Camry/Jetta class, then yes,
the M3 has a few weaknesses. However, anyone who would compare an M3 to
the average sedan just doesn't understand the car's market or appeal.
BTW, BMW does offer tilt wheel on the European E36 line. It was removed
from the US line early on due to a problem with US crash testing specs.
Ron Katona
Lloyd R. Parker wrote:
> If they offered something in the $25,000-30,000 range, with the room not
> be classified as a subcompact, with some amenities like tilt wheel, and
> without the J C Whitney skirts, I'd be impressed and consider it a bargain.
Go buy a Maxima and be happy! Leave the performance cars to those who
appreciate them.
Reid D Rivenburgh
>> Lloyd R Parker writes:
Brandon Sommerville (bra...@caseware.com) wrote:
Brandon> Show me a comparably priced coupe that will seat 4 and
Brandon> perform the way the M3 does. Your idea of bargain seems to
Brandon> be based on the number of cupholders.
I like the way Brandon and I both used cupholders in our rebuttals!
LRP> 2 of those 4 had better be under the age of 6. And the other 2
LRP> had better be on the slim side.
Lloyd, the backseat is more bearable than my old Integra's. Certainly
tolerable. And the point is, how many other performance cars give you
that?
LRP> Why not a compact instead of a subcompact, BMW?
Hey, I WANTED a car that size. Although, from listening to you, I
realize my priorities are hopelessly confused and I should have been
shopping for a twenty-year old Caddy. (Nothing personal, Caddy fans.)
LRP> How about a tilt wheel? How about a car without J C
LRP> Whitney-looking air dam and skirts?
The wheel is perfect as-is, and don't even begin to talk about its
looks. Not only are they subjective, but most people would agree that
it's a beaut.
LRP> How about an interior that looks richer than one on a $10,000
LRP> Neon?
I got the luxury package, so I have the gee-whiz wood everywhere.
Whoopty-do. And the leather can beat out any Neon, I'd bet. But who
cares?
LRP> Your idea of a car seems to be 0-60 and slalom times. Most
LRP> people want more. Even in a performance car.
Har har, like the M3 is a stripper race car. What a maroon. Gee,
Lloyd, maybe you could realize that different people want different
things, and that for certain people, the M3 IS a great car (maybe
even, dare I say, a bargain compared to its competition)? What a
concept.
I don't know why I bother...
Reid
Reid D Rivenburgh
>> Lloyd R Parker writes:
LRP> How about 40k for one of the smallest sedans in NA? $40k for a
LRP> sub compact? 40k for a car with not even a tilt wheel? 40k
LRP> for a car with an interior (OK, the 328, but the interior's the
LRP> same) C/D said would be an embarrassment in a car half the
LRP> price?
Watch out, he's in auto-Lloyd attack mode! How about we pool together
and give you 40k to stop posting this drivel? If one of the few
things you can find wrong with a car is the lack of a tilt wheel, then
I feel pretty good about my purchase. Repeat after me: No car is 100%
perfect for everyone.
Reid
P.S. And yes, I read the C/D review part, and it's plenty luxurious
for me, thanks. (I did get the luxury package, by the way.)
Sean Santiago
In article <5e21ri$b...@larry.cc.emory.edu>, lpa...@larry.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) wrote:
Um, Lloyd...have you ever ridden in an M3? A friend of mine just bought a
'97. To address your points:
:The problems are:
:
:1. It's tiny inside. It's a subcompact.
:
I don't agree with this at all. I'm 6 ft tall and I fit in the back seat with
another 6 footer in front of me. The car seats 4. Comfortably. Granted, not
as comfortably as a larger sedan...but it's likely the people who buy it
aren't looking for room for 6.
:2. It looks like somebody's parody of J C Whitney air dams and skirts.
:
That's an opinion. I respect your right to think that. I just don't agree.
:3. Quality interior? C/D said of the 328 (same interior) that the
:interior would be embarrassing in a car half the price. I was certainly
:not impressed with the 328 interior
<snip>
Having actually ridden in an M3 (a 95, 96 & 97) I can attest that you are a
bit off in this assesment. They are not the same interior. Stop by a
dealership and sit in them. Magazine photos and web page shots don't tell the
full story.
: And no tilt wheel? Door panels that
:look like they could be off a Corolla? No in-dash CD player? No factory
:CD player at all?
:
Wrong on all points. Well, the Corolla comment is an opinion...but the CD
player is a Harmon Kardon...I stuck a disc in it myself. Again, go sit in
one. Drive it. All theory and no practice doesn't make a very good resource.
Just think, how believeable would chemisty for students if they didn't
actually perform the experiments?
:4. With automatic, it's not faster than an 850R. And I bet most M3s will
:be sold with automatic, like most other sports cars (except Porsche and
:Ferrari) are.
:
So, how much did you want to bet? I'm serious here. I've driven both, so I
feel confident in my opinion. I'll be in Atlanta next week if you want to
arrange a race.
:For that money, I'd take a Seville STS, or a 528, or an E320. Or, for
:less, an ES300, a Millenia S, an 850 GLT, an A6 Quattro, or a Catera. Or
:for even less, an Intrepid ES or a Maxima SE.
Again, an opinion. Personally, I'll stick to my Supra.
-=Sean
--
Sean A. Santiago
http://rampages.onramp.net/~red5 re...@onramp.net
http://www.nortel.com/rapport se...@nortel.com
Comments & views are mine, not my employers.
Rod
In article <5e227l$c...@larry.cc.emory.edu>
lpa...@larry.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
>Reid D Rivenburgh (re...@lanl.gov) wrote:
>:
>: Uh, Lloyd, have you ever even ridden in one?
>
>I've test driven a 328; I imagine the M3 rides similarly, but a little
>harsher due to its lower profile tires.
>
>features (tilt wheel, BMW? This isn't something invested yesterday.),
>and good styling (now I know who bought J C Whitney's inventory of air
>dams and skirts). And does all this for $25-32k. There are a lot of
>cars, even performance cars, out there that fit the bill.
its on my list of cars to look at when the lease on the Accord expires.
Of course it isnt your idea of a
bargain sedan. :) The M3 was never meant to be a bargain sedan.
It was meant to be a REAL sports sedan. Unlike those wannabes out there.
For the performance it provides, its somewhat of a bargain.
---
-Rod 1ryh...@ibm.mtsac.edu
My home page: http://www.mtsac.edu:81/~1ryh2766/
ASI: http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/3673/
------------------------------------------------------------
1994 Toyota Supra Turbo * 1996 Honda Accord LX
Lloyd R. Parker
Andres Goldberg (gold...@felix.seas.ucla.edu) wrote:
:
: : The problems are:
:
: : 1. It's tiny inside.
: Are you kidding? Christ, how big are you? I'm 5'9' and 260# and I was
: roommate fit comfortably in the passenger side (with the seat all the way
: back) and there was still plenty of rear room. If you want something huge
: inside that performs like an M3 get an Impala SS and tweak it out.
I've driven one, and sat in the front and rear seats of one. It's tiny.
The front seat room, 47 cu.ft., is smaller than an 850 or Maxima by far.
The rear seat room, 38 cu.ft., is MUCH smaller than any of the
competition. I repeat, it's classified by the EPA as a SUBcompact. It's
also quite narrow inside.
:
: : 2. It looks like somebody's parody of J C Whitney air dams and skirts.
:
: I think it look great. So what if it looks like a boy-racer? :)
If I have to tell you, it's hopeless.
:
: : 4. With automatic, it's not faster than an 850R. And I bet most M3s will
: : be sold with automatic, like most other sports cars (except Porsche and
: : Ferrari) are.
:
: Most other sports cars are sold with an auto? In what country? Maybe most
: luxury "sport" sedans, like a Lexus GS300 or similar are, but IMHO most
: sports cars (like Firebirds, Mustangs, Camaros, Supra, etc) are sold with
: a 5 speed. I *could* be wrong, though.
Over half of Corvettes are automatics. The % is closer to 75 on Z/28s
and Trans Ams. Even Supras and 300ZXs are majority automatics. Last I
read, only Porsches and RX-7s were majority manuals among the non-exotics.
Lloyd R. Parker
: > features (tilt wheel, BMW? This isn't something invested yesterday.),
: > and good styling (now I know who bought J C Whitney's inventory of air
: > dams and skirts). And does all this for $25-32k. There are a lot of
: > cars, even performance cars, out there that fit the bill.
: A bargain sedan? Now we're comparing an M3 to a bargain sedan?
Someone said the M3 was a bargain. I responded that it's not my idea of one.
:
: BTW, BMW does offer tilt wheel on the European E36 line. It was removed
: from the US line early on due to a problem with US crash testing specs.
Hmmm... considering that the current 3-series FAILED its US crash test
(the only car to do so), I'd hate to see what would have happened with
the tilt wheel then!
Seriously, the current 3-series is hardly in its first year. Are you
telling me BMW, mighty engineering giant, couldn't engineer a tilt wheel
that would be safe? Tell me how Neons, Escorts, Saturns and the like can
offer tilt wheels AND pass crash tests. If a small, light, inexpensive
car from the Big 3 can do it, BMW cannot? What did the engineers do, put
all their time into designing that monstrous air dam and side skirts?
Lloyd R. Parker
You own a 318ti. What do you know of performance cars? Gee, all of 1.9
L! The acceleration must be mind-boggling. Not to mention the Gremlin
approach taken (chop off the rear and put a hatch on it).
Lloyd R. Parker
Sean Santiago (re...@onramp.netREMOVE-TO-REPLY) wrote:
: In article <5e21ri$b...@larry.cc.emory.edu>, lpa...@larry.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) wrote:
:
: Um, Lloyd...have you ever ridden in an M3? A friend of mine just bought a
: '97. To address your points:
I've test driven a 328.
:
: :The problems are:
: :
: :1. It's tiny inside. It's a subcompact.
: :
: I don't agree with this at all. I'm 6 ft tall and I fit in the back seat with
: another 6 footer in front of me. The car seats 4. Comfortably. Granted, not
: as comfortably as a larger sedan...but it's likely the people who buy it
: aren't looking for room for 6.
Or 3 or 4, for that matter. The car seats 4 IF 2 of them are pre-teens.
Lloyd R. Parker
Isn't that like saying Dole is nicer than Gingrich?
: Certainly
: tolerable. And the point is, how many other performance cars give you
: that?
Maxima SE. Intrepid ES. Grand Prix GTP. Taurus SHO. Seville STS.
Millenia S. 850R.
:
: LRP> How about a tilt wheel? How about a car without J C
: LRP> Whitney-looking air dam and skirts?
:
: The wheel is perfect as-is,
Maybe for you, but people come in different heights with different length
arms and legs.
: and don't even begin to talk about its
: looks. Not only are they subjective, but most people would agree that
: it's a beaut.
Compared to what? The Lexus SC? Mercedes' new coupe? Yeah, compared to
a Taurus or Contour, OK. But the pug nose spoils the Bimmer for me.
:
: LRP> How about an interior that looks richer than one on a $10,000
: LRP> Neon?
:
: I got the luxury package, so I have the gee-whiz wood everywhere.
: Whoopty-do. And the leather can beat out any Neon, I'd bet. But who
: cares?
People than can afford $40k for a car generally do.
:
: LRP> Your idea of a car seems to be 0-60 and slalom times. Most
: LRP> people want more. Even in a performance car.
:
: Har har, like the M3 is a stripper race car. What a maroon.
A purple color? Is this what color your M3 is?
Ron Katona
Lloyd R. Parker wrote:
> You own a 318ti. What do you know of performance cars? Gee, all of 1.9
> L! The acceleration must be mind-boggling. Not to mention the Gremlin
> approach taken (chop off the rear and put a hatch on it).
Ah... when did I say the 318ti had great acceleration? It does handle
quite well, and is quicker than most people think. It's about average in
speed, with low 8's 0-60 (with the 1.9l/5sp). The Mustang runs about 5.5
0-60 and has a few suspension tweaks to tame the imperfect handling.
Also, those are not the only cars I've ever driven Lloyd. What do you
know of performance cars, and why change the subject?
Ron Katona
Lloyd R. Parker wrote:
> Seriously, the current 3-series is hardly in its first year. Are you
> telling me BMW, mighty engineering giant, couldn't engineer a tilt wheel
> that would be safe?
Obviously, you and I both know that they could. They chose not to. Why,
I don't know. You and I judge cars very differently, and tilt wheel is
not high on my list. Also, please name the source of the crash test
data, I'd like to take a look at it to see what areas the E36 failed.
As far as crash tests, US crash tests are often criticized for not
representing real-world crashes. Did the E36 pass German crash tests
(with tilt wheel)? I'll bet it did. Having owned a Neon, I feel much
more safe in the BMW with it's standard traction control, better ABS,
better handling, seat belt pre-tensioners, strong roof structure,
stronger headrest design, etc...
Ron Katona
Lloyd R. Parker wrote:
>
> Reid D Rivenburgh (re...@lanl.gov) wrote:
> :
> : Lloyd, the backseat is more bearable than my old Integra's.
>
> Isn't that like saying Dole is nicer than Gingrich?
>
> : Certainly
> : tolerable. And the point is, how many other performance cars give you
> : that?
>
> Maxima SE. Intrepid ES. Grand Prix GTP. Taurus SHO. Seville STS.
> Millenia S. 850R.
This explains a lot. The fact that you equate those models with an M3
shows you do not understand the market segment. All of those cars are
nice pieces. Some come close in performance to the M3 in one or two
areas. None come close in all around performance. The M3 is in a
performance segment by itself, that's why it's priced where it is.
Seriously, do you think a performance minded buyer, who has the
occasional need for a back seat, is going to compare an Intrepid ES
(nice as it is) to an M3? The M3 buyer is more likely someone who
outgrew a smaller performance car, like an RX7, 911, 'Vette, etc. When
compared to those cars, the M3 becomes very senseable. You have to look
at it in the proper market segment.
Brandon Sommerville
On 14 Feb 1997 17:31:10 -0500, lpa...@larry.cc.emory.edu
(Lloyd R. Parker) is accused of saying:
>Ron Katona (ro...@cris.com) wrote:
:
>: Go buy a Maxima and be happy! Leave the performance cars to those who
>: appreciate them.
>: --
>: Ron Katona ro...@cris.com
>: 88 Mustang LX 5.0
>: 97 BMW 318ti
>
>
>You own a 318ti. What do you know of performance cars? Gee, all of 1.9
>L! The acceleration must be mind-boggling. Not to mention the Gremlin
>approach taken (chop off the rear and put a hatch on it).
>
Says our Intrepid driver who counts cupholders before he
buys a car! I like how you skipped over the mustang when
talking about acceleration! LOL
Brandon Sommerville
On 14 Feb 1997 11:00:53 -0500, lpa...@larry.cc.emory.edu
(Lloyd R. Parker) is accused of saying:
>Reid D Rivenburgh (re...@lanl.gov) wrote:
>:
>: Uh, Lloyd, have you ever even ridden in one?
>
>I've test driven a 328; I imagine the M3 rides similarly, but a little
>harsher due to its lower profile tires.
I'd imagine?
>My idea of a bargain sedan is one that offers good room (the M3 doesn't),
>features (tilt wheel, BMW? This isn't something invested yesterday.),
>and good styling (now I know who bought J C Whitney's inventory of air
>dams and skirts). And does all this for $25-32k. There are a lot of
>cars, even performance cars, out there that fit the bill.
>
Name a few.
Rod
In article <5e2q5e$3...@larry.cc.emory.edu>
>: tolerable. And the point is, how many other performance cars give you
>: that?
>
>Maxima SE. Intrepid ES. Grand Prix GTP. Taurus SHO. Seville STS.
>Millenia S. 850R.
>: and don't even begin to talk about its
>: looks. Not only are they subjective, but most people would agree that
>: it's a beaut.
>
>Compared to what? The Lexus SC? Mercedes' new coupe? Yeah, compared to
>a Taurus or Contour, OK. But the pug nose spoils the Bimmer for me.
Okay so the M3 looks pug nose to ya, but to M3 fans, it looks muscular,
sedate, and its a fox disguised as Lamb. :)
>
>: I got the luxury package, so I have the gee-whiz wood everywhere.
>: Whoopty-do. And the leather can beat out any Neon, I'd bet. But who
>: cares?
>
>People than can afford $40k for a car generally do.
now though. :(
Rod
In article <5e349i$d...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>
br...@cco.caltech.edu (Bryan Chow) writes:
>
>In article <5e1vqj$2...@larry.cc.emory.edu>,
>Lloyd R. Parker <lpa...@larry.cc.emory.edu> wrote:
>>
>For the enthusiast who is looking for handling and fun-to-drive-ness
>in a car, the M3 sedan can be a very good deal because nothing else
>can offer that much performance AND practicality at that price.
A Toyota Supra Turbo :) ...but admittedly its not a sedan.
Rod
In article <33061f0f...@206.66.12.200>
rmo...@insnet.com (RMoburg) writes:
>On 14 Feb 1997 10:54:26 -0500, lpa...@larry.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R.
>>: gorgeous good looks, power, handling, and cool M3 badge, it's a bargain.
>>: It is in a class by itself.
>>:
>
>Now if anybody says I'm defending Lloyd I'll fall apart here but....
>the M3 is rediculously small.. I'm 6'2" and about 225 lbs. and forget
>it! No way.. my head was scraping my legs were scraping and I couldn't
>even push it a bit because my right leg was obstructing the steering
>wheel. This is a seriously small drivers area.
>Too bad because the car felt very taught and responsive. But no way
>could I take a trip in that car.
Naah, as a ex M3 owner I will admit that the M3 is a real snug fit.
Could I interest you in a 540i Sport? heh, heh.
Brandon Sommerville
On 14 Feb 1997 10:22:39 -0500, lpa...@larry.cc.emory.edu
(Lloyd R. Parker) is accused of saying:
>Brandon Sommerville (bra...@caseware.com) wrote:
:
>: Show me a comparably priced coupe that will seat 4 and
>: perform the way the M3 does. Your idea of bargain seems to
>: be based on the number of cupholders.
>
>2 of those 4 had better be under the age of 6.
Hey, if performance isn't the priority, get a 528.
>And the other 2 had better be on the slim side.
Is our professor portly?
>Why not a compact instead of a subcompact, BMW?
Because that's the size of the 3 series, which seems to sell
relatively well.
>How about a tilt wheel?
How about cup holders?
>How about a car without J C Whitney-looking air dam and skirts?
Absolutely. Lets ignore aerodynamics completely.
>How about an interior that looks richer than one on a $10,000 Neon?
Heh.
>Your idea of a car seems to be 0-60 and slalom times. Most people want more.
>Even in a performance car.
>
If your idea of performance is 0-60 and slalom times, then
you really have no clue what you are talking about. Why do
you think C/D love the car? For its price, it is the most
capable performance sedan.
The situation is obvious. Anything that is not comfort
oriented is not a bargain to you. Hey, enjoy your
cupholders!
Marc
lpa...@larry.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) wrote:
[M3]
>I've driven one, and sat in the front and rear seats of one.
Was it too small for you to be comfortable?
Efficient use of space that gets a small EPA rating, but still seats
people comfortably is a good thing.
Marc
Bryan Chow
In article <330373ba...@news.zippo.com>,
Brandon Sommerville <brandon at caseware dot com> wrote:
>>
>>Maybe the Audi S6?
>>
>Or the RS2 Avant.
Or the Japan-market Toyota Aristo Turbo (Lexus GS300 with 320 hp Supra
Turbo engine).
Or the Lotus Carlton (180+ mph sedan). And of course the E500, C36,
E50, M5.
--
Bryan Chow | California Institute of Technology
br...@cco.caltech.edu | Home : www.cco.caltech.edu/~bryan
br...@translogic.com OREGON | Roxy Music: www.cco.caltech.edu/~bryan/roxy
Translogic Technology Inc | Driving : NSX.vtec.net
Hiok-tiaq Ng
In article <33028B...@cris.com>, Ron Katona <ro...@cris.com> wrote:
>Hiok-tiaq Ng wrote:
>Stable, predictable handling at the limit has always been a hallmark of
>the E36. An M3 can make anyone look like pro. Do you mean in snow? In
>most "real world" conditions in North America, there's no snow on the
>road. There are many things people might dislike about a BMW, but
>reaching the limits of the driver's skill is probably the least of them.
True, an M3 can make anyone look good, but lets compare the more
'pedestrian' models. About 'real-world' conditions, I had uneven
road surfaces, slick roads, wet autumn leaves blah blah in mind.
What I really meant to say was that in those conditions, and of
course in snow, 'enthusiastic' driving can be accomplished easier
and with more peace of mind than a RWD car. With Quattro, dry or wet,
one can brake later into a turn and power out sooner. Of course,
if one enjoys the tingling sensation of the onset of swapping
ends, it can be done in AWD or RWD. You just have more control
bringing a car to that edge with AWD. This could be good or bad,
depending on your outlook.
>I agree! What's interesting to me is how Audi fans call the E36 old, or
>long in the tooth, but they are so willing to point out the Audi's
>strengths compared to it. What does that say? It says that BMW was
>building cars 5 years ago that are very close to what Audi's best has to
>offer today!
That's probably because the E36 is the A4's only serious market
segment competitor from Germany. As for Audi being 5 years behind
BMW, that's another can of worms. As far as the A4 being equivalent
to the 5 year old E36, that is not true IMO. The E36 is an older
chassis. An A4 chassis has a few more years to go. Case in point,
an A4q works supertourer with 55 kg weight penalty is more
than a match for a 320i works supertourer. The 1996 Touring Car
championships where Audi and BMW sparred saw Audi taking all
driver's trophies, most team and manufacturer's trophies with
said weight penalty.
Inherent in the above is the assumption that showroom versions
reflect the racetrack version's strengths.
No doubt BMW will up the ante with the new 3 series.
>You're right though. I'm glad Audi offered 3/36 free maintenance in '96,
>BMW matched it for '97. Hopefully BMW will match some of the other
>features offered by Audi, Lexus, etc. I really hope that a BMW remains a
>BMW, with the emphasis on performance and feel over cupholders and
>packaging.
Personally, I'm hoping that Audi marketing stops shortchanging
N. American consumers and bring the performance versions. They
have not brought over anything since the demise of the S4/S6.
Imagine State Patrol cars chasing a 340hp S8 in the snow! That'll
be a spectacle to watch (from a distance!) if not for the Motorolas.
Tiaq
ht...@ece.orst.edu
Bryan Chow
>be classified as a subcompact, with some amenities like tilt wheel, and
>without the J C Whitney skirts, I'd be impressed and consider it a bargain.
Lloyd, you're missing the point.
Someone can say the same thing about a Chrysler LHS, for example, $30K
and can't handle worth a damn and is not the least bit fun to drive.
For the enthusiast who is looking for handling and fun-to-drive-ness
in a car, the M3 sedan can be a very good deal because nothing else
can offer that much performance AND practicality at that price.
--
Bryan Chow
In article <5e28fk$r...@pvninter01.pvn.com>,
Andres Goldberg <gold...@felix.seas.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>Most other sports cars are sold with an auto? In what country? Maybe most
>luxury "sport" sedans, like a Lexus GS300 or similar are, but IMHO most
>sports cars (like Firebirds, Mustangs, Camaros, Supra, etc) are sold with
>a 5 speed. I *could* be wrong, though.
80% of Corvettes sold are automatics. In fact, it comes standard with
the automatic - the stick is an option.
Incidentally, only 5% of NSXs sold in the US are automatics.
Hiok-tiaq Ng
In article <wykE5J...@netcom.com>, Your Bud Wes <w...@netcom.com> wrote:
>: What many people don't realize is that the BMW can be pushed to
>: great limits, but this is mostly done in ideal conditions.
>: In the real world, Quattro is a significant advantage that arguably
>
>In the real world, I have no problems pushing this M3 to it's limits.
>It has extremely predictable handling and unmatched feedback. I have
>gotten to the point where I can tell exactly when the wheels are
>going to start chirping.
Don't have an M3, so have to take your word for it. However, its
kinda off topic comparing an ordinary A4 to a specialized M3.
>For foul weather, the Audi is unbeatable(this includes rain).
>However, foul weather is a rarity here in California. So rare
>that when it does rain(or friggin flood like it has lately) we
>have no problems slowing down a bit. There's plenty of sun to
>go around later. It was 68 degrees(according to my M3's external
>thermostat) and sunny today in San Jose. How about there?
Quattro is not only your foul weather friend . There are other
benefits to it, like braking later into a corner and powering
out sooner. As for weather here, well, the Pacific Northwest
is Quattro country, for obvious reasons.
>: True BMW enthusiasts should welcome the challenge of Audi,
>: since competition improves the breed. Poseurs will of
>: course dislike BMW's image quotient being challenged.
>: That's why I find it puzzling that instead of dissecting
>: what the Audi does well, some people have been highlighting
>: what the A4 does not do well compared to the BMW.
>
>You have a point. You'll notice the M3 now has Traction control and
>a similar warranty to Audi's. That's a good thing. You'll also
>notice that no Audi really comes close to a BMW M3 for performance.
>But most of all you'll notice the M3 costs 20k more than the base
>Quattro 1.8TQ. If Audi wants to be a player and get true performance
>recognition, they need to come out with a 35,000$ M3 beater.
>Something like a 2 litre, high pressure turbo pumping out 250HPs
>to a Quattro controlling 6 speed would make them performance car
>gods. Yet, even with Audi's vast Vorsprung durch Tecnik, it doesn't
>have a true sports car model(in the US, at least). I spent several
>months considering which one to buy. I ALMOST got an AMG C36! So, I
>am actually of the opinion that at 35k, this M3 is a bargain.
>However, the Audi is a brilliant car. Given a true (not half hearted)
>sport package that gave you tighter suspension, 17" wheels, Quattro,
>250+ hp's, and perhaps some aero effects, you'd have a nice car.
>As it stands, it's a good car.
The 1.8 turbo unit is a power restricted unit. For the Audi
TT roadsters, the same unit pumps out 210hp. We get the 150hp
probably due to marketing reasons. Quite frustrating!
It is a pity that Audi has no Sport versions in the USA right
now. A 93 S4 can give a 93 M3 a run for its money in the dry,
but not a 97 M3. We don't get all the goodies the Europeans
get. There will be a 1998 S4 based on the A4 with the 5valve
V6 twin turbo with rumored 260hp to be unveiled in Geneva.
Can expect humongous torque + overboost at low rpm, as evinced
by recent Audi S models. Gotta start saving for that one.
> | / / Wes Y. Keller (5277191) |
>
Tiaq
ht...@ece.orst.edu
i
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
uu
RMoburg
On Fri, 14 Feb 97 20:15:57 GMT, re...@onramp.netREMOVE-TO-REPLY (Sean
Santiago) wrote:
>In article <5e21ri$b...@larry.cc.emory.edu>, lpa...@larry.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) wrote:
>
>Um, Lloyd...have you ever ridden in an M3? A friend of mine just bought a
>'97. To address your points:
>
>:The problems are:
>:
>:1. It's tiny inside. It's a subcompact.
>:
>I don't agree with this at all. I'm 6 ft tall and I fit in the back seat with
>another 6 footer in front of me. The car seats 4. Comfortably. Granted, not
>as comfortably as a larger sedan...but it's likely the people who buy it
>aren't looking for room for 6.
>
>
Sean,
I'm 6'2" and had the M3 on the short list for a new car but I just
didn't fit. See my earlier post. I'm a bit large at 225 but that
drivers area is small. 4 footers in the M3? How long could you of
ridden that way?
RMoburg
On 14 Feb 1997 10:54:26 -0500, lpa...@larry.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R.
Parker) wrote:
>Your Bud Wes (w...@netcom.com) wrote:
>:
>: This M3 rides better (read: smoother, more quiet) than anything else in
>: the sports car class. It handles as well or better while doing it(Barring
>: some corvettes and true 2 seater sports cars). It is faster than anything
>: BENZ, SAAB, Audi, and Volvo put together. It even handles better than the
>: Volvo 850R, yet rides far more smoothly. For the 40k price range, and the
>: quality interior(ahh this M3 spec leather is nice), with it's drop dead
>: gorgeous good looks, power, handling, and cool M3 badge, it's a bargain.
>: It is in a class by itself.
>:
>
>The problems are:
>
>1. It's tiny inside. It's a subcompact.
>
There has been so much posted I ran up to the local BMW shop. They
jusy announced they are one of the biggest in the country. They are
about 5 minutes away and have a huge lot. I was drooling as I think
BMW is about as good as it gets in modern sedans.
Anyway I got to strap on a BMW M3 even if it was an Auto.
John Gregor
lpa...@larry.cc.emory.edu wrote:
> 2 of those 4 had better be under the age of 6. And the other 2 had
> better be on the slim side. Why not a compact instead of a subcompact,
It is probably designed for Europeans, who don't typically have the
American tendency towards obesity. Many people prefer a smaller,
more agile automobile.
J
Timmy Fogerson
>Your Bud Wes (w...@netcom.com) wrote:
>:
>: quality interior(ahh this M3 spec leather is nice), with it's drop dead
>: gorgeous good looks, power, handling, and cool M3 badge, it's a bargain.
>: It is in a class by itself.
You gotta be kidding! Quality interior in an M3? Haven't owned one
for very long yet? I average taking mine in every two months to
address interior warranty issues.
M3 (3-series) interiors are junk. Shame, it's the only thing that
keeps it from being a really *great* car!
Timmy
"Ticket Me Red" '69 RS Z/28 Camaro
"Arrest Me Red" '95 BMW M3
John Weir
po.com> <5e1vvv$3...@larry.cc.emory.edu>
<vet67zv...@cic3c.c3.lanl.gov> <5e2q5e$3...@larry.cc.emory.edu>
Organization: Exec-PC
Distribution:
Lloyd R. Parker (lpa...@larry.cc.emory.edu) wrote:
: Reid D Rivenburgh (re...@lanl.gov) wrote:
: :
: : Lloyd, the backseat is more bearable than my old Integra's.
: Isn't that like saying Dole is nicer than Gingrich?
In a back seat, or generally speaking?
Those politicians are such sluts you know.
You would have more luck with Clinton, anyhow.
But he doesn't inhale...heah heah heah
John
Joshua Turner
snip
> : Ron Katona ro...@cris.com
> : 88 Mustang LX 5.0
> : 97 BMW 318ti
>
> You own a 318ti. What do you know of performance cars? Gee, all of 1.9
> L! The acceleration must be mind-boggling. Not to mention the Gremlin
> approach taken (chop off the rear and put a hatch on it).
This from our intrepid Intrepid pilot. Those who live in glass houses...
Joshua Turner
97 Taurus SHO
Ron Katona
Joshua Turner wrote:
>Lloyd R. Parker wrote:
> > L! The acceleration must be mind-boggling. Not to mention the Gremlin
> > approach taken (chop off the rear and put a hatch on it).
>
> This from our intrepid Intrepid pilot. Those who live in glass houses...
>
> Joshua Turner
> 97 Taurus SHO
You know, I forgot Lloyd drives an Intrepid! I did some research of the
numbers (since that's all that matters :-P) and found the following:
My 1997 5-sp 318ti is faster, quieter, and far more fuel efficient, than
the Intrepid. It also handles better, brakes a lot shorter, and holds
considerably more of it's value over time. In defense of the Intrepid
(aptly named after an aircraft carrier), it's bigger. 36.1 inches and
almost 600 lbs bigger. Because Chrysler pushes the wheels out to the
corners of the car (no wonder other cars keep tipping over), they were
able to translate that extra three feet of car into .2 inches extra
front headroom, 1.3 extra inches front legroom, .4 inches LESS rear
headroom, and 6.2 inches more rear legroom.
So, Chrysler managed to squeeze about 7 inches of usable space out of
their cab-forward Intrepid from just 36 inches of extra length. Most of
that goes to the many people we carry around in the rear seats of our
cars all the time. Of course, it also has a much larger trunk. However,
with the ti's split fold down seats it can swallow bigger items than the
Intrepid as well. I must admit that the cupholders are far superior to
anything BMW puts out.
--
Ron Katona ro...@cris.com
88 Mustang LX 5.0
97 BMW 318ti (Now with Mind-Boggling Acceleration - TM)
RMoburg
Ron,
I know this is running counter to what you just posted but I am
starting to look for a new car and was looking forward to my drive in
an M3. I posted this before but I am 6'2" 225 and the car is just too
small to be considered. Honestly it wasn't just a little snug, it was
to the point I really wouldn't want to be in it very long. It's too
bad as I thought it would be exactly what i wanted for a new car.
But no way does it have enough room. I know it's a bit subjective but
I was really cramped. OTOH my wife's Mystique is fine. It would be
interesting to see a comparison of the Mystique vs. the M3?
RMoburg
On Sat, 15 Feb 1997 22:03:34 GMT, rmo...@insnet.com (RMoburg) wrote:
>But no way does it have enough room. I know it's a bit subjective but
>I was really cramped. OTOH my wife's Mystique is fine. It would be
>interesting to see a comparison of the Mystique vs. the M3?
>
I just pulled both set of numbers from Edmunds:
BMW M3 Sedan:
Front Headroom: 38.1 in.
Rear Headroom: 37.3 in.
Front Shoulder Room: 53.3 in.
RearShoulder Room: 53.3 in.
Front Hip Room: NA
Rear Hip Room: NA
Front Leg Room: 41.1 in.
Rear Leg Room: 34 in.
Luggage Capacity: 10.3 cu.ft.
Mystique:
Interior:
Front Headroom: 39 in.
Rear Headroom: 36.7 in.
Front Shoulder Room: 53.9 in.
RearShoulder Room: 53.3 in.
Front Hip Room: 50.7 in.
Rear Hip Room: 45.5 in.
Front Leg Room: 42.4 in.
Rear Leg Room: 34.3 in.
Luggage Capacity: 13.9 cu.ft.
My first question is who does these measurements? I'm going to go back
and take my wife's Mystique so I can really compare but my "seat of
the pants feel" says now way are they this close to each other in
front seat space. I certainly could be wrong...Hell I hope I am
wrong. But it does bring up the question of where the measurements
come from? I'll try again and post next week.
Ron Katona
RMoburg wrote:
> I know this is running counter to what you just posted but I am
> starting to look for a new car and was looking forward to my drive in
> an M3. I posted this before but I am 6'2" 225 and the car is just too
> small to be considered. Honestly it wasn't just a little snug, it was
> to the point I really wouldn't want to be in it very long.
I don't doubt your experience at all; I'm sure the car is not
comfortable for you. Actually, I'm about 6'1" 185. The ti is just big
enough to accommodate me comfortably. Depending on where you carry your
height and weight, I can easily see where an M3 is too small.
The other car I narrowed my new car search to was an Acura Integra GS-R.
Fun car, well built, faster than the ti, but my head was rubbing the
roof. I've heard from other over 6 footers that they fit the Integra
just fine. Well, I didn't. I couldn't have lived with it. I'm sure
that's how you feel about the M3. Too bad, there's really nothing else
in it's market to shop for.
David Masten
>>Lloyd R. Parker wrote:
>> > You own a 318ti. What do you know of performance cars? Gee, all of 1.9
>> > L! The acceleration must be mind-boggling. Not to mention the Gremlin
>> > approach taken (chop off the rear and put a hatch on it).
Lloyd, why not try driving the damn car before making such worthless jabs!
It is a hell of a nice driver's car. The styling is a matter of taste.
Gremlin-esque to you. I love it.
As to the Contour/Mystique vs M3 room. I've driven and rode in 325's and
just a touch in an M3 (Reid, I wish that cop wasn't in front of us!). I'd
offhand say they are similarly sized inside. Did you drop the BMW's seat
to its lowest height? At 5-6, I fit just fine in any :-) As to
performance, well, better just let that one drop. Actually, the Contour
impressed me today, and that was only a GL (with sport and v6).
Finally, to 318ti vs GS-R (I'll probably reply to that separate thread
later): yes, by the #'s, the GS-R wins. By price too. The delta in price
makes it tough to go 318ti. But I do prefer the 318ti in most every
other way. And I do like the Integra. Just like the 318ti that much more.
Feels more solid, prefer the looks, the visibility, the utility. Both get
top marks for their 4-bangers, shifters (but nobody beats Honda), steering
(actually, the Integra's is too light). But its so hard to part with $20K
($24K for a ti!) when they have such little power :-(