I stand corrected. I edited this post. Thanks MWM.
I was just now in traffic when an E46 ix (4 wheel drive) crawled past me in heavy traffic.
I thought of the review I read of it a while ago which had good things to say about it. That's when the question I pose dawned on me.
I'm not talking about nit-picky things like cup holders but more an overall thumbs down on a particular model. Even a significant problem that reduces long term serviceability like rust issues would be interesting to hear about since I wouldn't be surprised if the were no bad Bimmers straight from the factory.
Speaking of nit-picking, somebody (greg?) mentioned that "Beemer" should be used to refer to BMW motorcycles, whereas "Bimmer" is the more appropriate name for the cars.
The 318ti (circa 1995) was a big mistake to bring into the BMW lineup. Prior to that in 1991, the 2.5 liter 189 hp overhead cam engine (in the 525) virtually replaced the the high maintenance engine of the 535, and became the flagship of the 3 series from 1992 on.
Introducing the 1.8 liter engine was a step backwards, remminiscent of the now considered underpowered (even by 1995 standards) BMW models of the 70s and 80s. The attempt by BMW to lure buyers into the luxocar market with the 318ti, in my opinion, was poor judgement, and it never should have worn the roundel logo.
I agree with Dr. Rob on the 318ti, but I'm a little confused by the comments on the engines. Were you talking about the 2.5 or 3.5 engines as being good or bad or just giving a historical perspective?
On the 318ti, I know a guy who is so cheesy few people can stand to be around him for more than a few seconds who owned one. He would sit around and try to impress women by talking about his weight lifting abilities and general studliness (this guy was about 50lbs. overweight!!) while dropping in some statements about what it was like to drive a BMW. He would talk about the acceleration and handling. All the while I would have to bite my tongue because I was trying to be discreet about my 540/6. It was disgusting to see someone like this guy associated with the roundel. Luckily, all the women thought he was repulsive too. So, I always associate the 318ti with this type guy.
don't remember where I saw this, but an article I read talked about the 318ti being one of BMW's most successfull cars. Why? because something like 70% of 318ti owners went on to upgrade to better and more expensive BMWs.
That strategy is now being copied by Mercedes with the C230 sports coupe (ugly IMHO) and with BMW's reintroduction of the 325 compact.
I can't remember the code name of the 3 series that was produced from the mid 80's to begining of the 90's but I recall my father telling me about the 325ix that was made during those years and how bad it was and how many problems they had with the four wheel drive system in that car...one of them was for sale when we bought our first bmw...a 325is
I agree with Dr. Rob on the 318ti, but I'm a little confused by the comments on the engines. Were you talking about the 2.5 or 3.5 engines as being good or bad or just giving a historical perspective?Chris
The 3.5 liter straight six engine producing approx. 210 hp was a high maintenance engine. The solid lifter valve train required adjustment at 15,000 mi intervals, an antiquated steam engine by today's standards. Only a Ferrari loyalist would put up with the maintenance to keep the 3.5 running up to specs.
The 2.5 liter 4 valve / cylinder OHC engine introduced in 1991 was a revolutionary technological breakthrough in engine design by BMW. From this flagship engine came the M3 six and it's predecessors to the current phenomenal 333 hp 3.2 liter masterpiece.
William,
I also heard of the problems associated with the 325ix 4-wheel drive system offered in the US from 1988 to 1991. Maybe that's why it took BMW another decade to introduce the 330ix.
I'm surprised no one mentioned the "eta" engined cars, the 325e or the 525e. Not bad off the line, either of them, but both ran out of breath pretty fast. The 318ti would still be no. 1, however. FWIW, if I had been in the market for such a car, I'd have taken a used "real" 325i instead.:hihi:
I have to disagree with you on the 3.5 liter engine. Most BMW's of that vintage required valve adjustment, including my '91 M5 and my previous '89 325i. It usually is less than $200 when all is said and done. That engine is one of the more bulletproof ever built by BMW and there are numerous 3.5 liters still out there with 200,000+ miles on them. Jerry Brown 635i had 190k miles on it, with thousands of track miles, when he bent the car at Sears Point.
I will agree when we start to see the newer engines match the older ones for longevity. I shudder to think about long term maintenance costs of an E39 if things do start to go wrong. For all the sluggishnees of the 528e and 325e models those cars last forever. Moreover, they provide a nice stroker block if you through an i head on.
I believe the E46 M3 uses some type of solid lifter. I don't know if this will also need valve adjustments. However, as is the case with the engine in my E34, that is hardly inconvenient given the performance. What's amazing is how few problems people have with the E34's engine given the complexity for its day.
The 3.5 was single overhead cam also so adjustments were not that complicated. Of course, the self-adjusting newer ones are better for routine maintenance but vanos failure isn't that rare so there is always trade offs. The risk in today's cars is electronic failures. A simple glitch can leave you stranded, locked out of or in your car, or with all sorts of unrelated stuff failing simultaneously.
I find the US market perception of BMW, Mercedes, et al. remarkable.
They're mass-produced cars. They are not treasures. They are better than the average car, but they're certainly not all fast, even if most can cruise at high speeds very nicely.
The only thing wrong with the 318ti was that it wasn't particularly pretty, and still had the E30 rear suspension. There was nothing wrong with the motor. Bear in mind that worldwide most 5s are slower than that 318.
Now, my list of possible bad BMWs:
<UL><LI>The E21 3-series is generally considered by the Bimmerheads to be fatter, slower, and poorer-handing than the 1602/2002 predecessors, but I haven't spent enough time around them to say.</LI>
<LI>A case could be made that the E31 8-series was a turkey, too big and heavy and unresponsive for what it was supposed to be, and I'd tend to agree on that front but it <b>is</b> pretty.</LI>
<LI>Some might argue that the X5 is a bad BMW, good for what it is but not a BMW. I certainly would never buy one in preference to a real car, unless I had a gravel driveway to crawl up in winter.</LI></UL>
There are only two US-market BMWs that qualify as duds, though, and they're not really specific models but specific engine combinations:
<UL><LI>The mid-70s thermal-reactor-equipped cars, various E12s and I think E21s. BMW stalled on installing catalytic converters, the resulting use of a thermal reactor (basically a big heat-retaining exhaust manifold) cause crappy performance and lots of cracked heads. </LI>
<LI>And the eta-motor cars, various E28s and E30s of the '80s, 4500RPM valvesprings in pursuit of higher fuel economy. </LI></LIST>
I certainly don't think any of the 316 or 318 were bad BMWs.... They were right for the market they were sold in.... I don't seem to recall anything that was "bad", but perhaps more on the strange or weird side.. like that isetta buggy looking car, etc...
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
BMW M5 Forum and M6 Forums
3.2M posts
125.8K members
Since 2000
M5Board is the best forum community for information on the BMW M5 E60 (V-10), E39 (V-8), E34 (straight 6), E28, F90 and F10. Discuss performance, specs, reviews and more!