Tested and RIPPED : BMW 320d!

california_dude · 25th April 2007, 01:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1100D

I just test drove an E36 1994 325i Manual. As part of my car Hunting upon coming to US on official assignment for a year.The car exhibited the same wafting at interstate speeds. Maybe the tyres need balancing.

Moreover the exhaust was also wee bit loud (but not loud enough to suggest that the muffler was bust).

my opinion

BMW= Sporty
MB = luxury

there is a difference ..
sporty hugs the road and more a feel for the road and every bit of bump would be felt inside

luxury not so much as the chasis and shocks are supposed to absorb the bumps

comes from personal experience .. been driving 3 series for more than 4 years ..

GTO · 25th April 2007, 11:07

Quote:

BMW= Sporty
MB = luxury

That has changed. The 3 series had better ride quality than the C. Far better ride quality.

1100D · 26th April 2007, 01:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by california_dude

my opinion

BMW= Sporty
MB = luxury

there is a difference ..
sporty hugs the road and more a feel for the road and every bit of bump would be felt inside

luxury not so much as the chasis and shocks are supposed to absorb the bumps

comes from personal experience .. been driving 3 series for more than 4 years ..

I quite understand the difference between sporty and something that has a ride based suspension tuning.

However, my experience with another E36 was much the same, at interstate speeds 80-90 mph the car was a bit wafty (meaning there is a tendency that the car feels floating a bit). It could be just a coincidence that all these cars have the same problems of tyres.

Anyway your equations about MB's and Beemers are pretty much on track BUT would suggest driving an old Merc 190E 2.5-16 (if possible, they are very rare, but have driven one), it rides as well as it holds the road and feels thoroughly planted. One More thing, even 190E 2.6's roll less than the E36 chassis'd car (although that isn't much, considering the lovely experience the E36 is, I love the E30 too)

california_dude · 26th April 2007, 20:33

if you are in jersey let me know ..(i can lend you my car to show you want you guys mean ) i seem to have not noticed it .. i always drive at around 80 if not 90 most of the times .. its smooth as silk .. and all i do is keep this baby synthatic oil change everything 7G miles

CHIP · 27th April 2007, 11:47

Beemers are way better than mercs

Mercs only offer luxury

within the same price beemers offers luxury, latest technologies , power and all above that angel eyes and that king kong kind of look with sporty looks ..............

I think no point of thinking for option when difference 19/20 okay when difference is 10/20 now you dont need to think.............

doctorque · 14th June 2007, 15:46

i still wonder how the 3 can be unstable at speeds...
i did read numerous tests in autocar uk wherein they compared the new c vs the current 3..... and the 3 took the c class left-right in terms of vehicles dyanamic perfomance. including the straight line stability....
anyway people here know more i guess.. no offence (i work for bayerische)

GTO · 14th June 2007, 17:50

Hi doctorque, I wouldnt term the BMW 3 as unstable; but it was just not so as the Mercedes. Overall, there was a "wallowy" feeling.

Quote:

As the speedometer climbed higher, we discovered one huge drawback – High speed stability. It was nowhere as close to the C220 at high speeds (and we have done 240 in the C220). Forget the drivers, even the my Dad and friend on the rear seat complained of a wafty light feeling.

doctorque · 16th June 2007, 16:15

hey GTO, would agree to what youve said as of now, because i havent got an opportunity yet to strech a 320 Ds legs...

It might feels wafty at speeds, still needs to b checked out by myself...

anyway please keep giving reviews on all beemers, will help me in improving my skills at office.
Regards,
Kunal

drifter · 16th June 2007, 19:14

Does the 320d come with runflats? Because i've found the c200 ride much better than the bmw.

Drifter

Mad Monkey · 16th June 2007, 20:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by drifter

Does the 320d come with runflats? Because i've found the c200 ride much better than the bmw.

Drifter

yup it has runflats............

drifter · 16th June 2007, 22:06

Then i cant agree that the ride on the 320d was better than the c220. I've had a taste of these run-flats and didn't like them at all. Infact the only thing going for the C was the ride, otherwise it was outclassed by the bmw almost everywhere. Thats what I felt.

Drifter

GTO · 18th June 2007, 11:15

I find the C220 pretty harsh at lower speeds, and can get a tad uncomfortable on bad roads. However, the Beemer was much more compliant and absorbent on the broken chembur roads.

Or maybe you are talking about the older C-Class? In that case, yes. It had superb ride quality but was on 15 inch tyres. The 16 inchers have made a whole lot of difference (negative) to the ride.

Yes, it was on runflats at the time of test.

drifter · 18th June 2007, 11:23

Im talking about the new C, but looking at the photos, it seems the bmw is riding on 16inch rims. I drove with 17inch rims, so that explains it.

Drifter

GTO · 18th June 2007, 15:11

Dude, you drove the monster 325!! Thats the only one with 17 inchers as standard. How was it? That engine has got to be one of the most free-revving "non-M's" around.

drifter · 18th June 2007, 22:51

Quote:

Dude, you drove the monster 325!! Thats the only one with 17 inchers as standard. How was it? That engine has got to be one of the most free-revving "non-M's" around.

Yes...and to put it in a nutshell...Fantastic!!

Drifter

26th April 2007, 20:33	#19
california_dude Newbie Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Edison Posts: 12 Thanked: 0 Times	if you are in jersey let me know ..(i can lend you my car to show you want you guys mean ) i seem to have not noticed it .. i always drive at around 80 if not 90 most of the times .. its smooth as silk .. and all i do is keep this baby synthatic oil change everything 7G miles
	() Thanks

27th April 2007, 11:47	#20
CHIP BHPian Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: lUDHIANA,PUNJAB Posts: 62 Thanked: 0 Times View My Garage	Beemers are way better than mercs Mercs only offer luxury within the same price beemers offers luxury, latest technologies , power and all above that angel eyes and that king kong kind of look with sporty looks .............. I think no point of thinking for option when difference 19/20 okay when difference is 10/20 now you dont need to think.............
	() Thanks

14th June 2007, 15:46	#21
doctorque BHPian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Mumbai Posts: 565 Thanked: 404 Times	i still wonder how the 3 can be unstable at speeds... i did read numerous tests in autocar uk wherein they compared the new c vs the current 3..... and the 3 took the c class left-right in terms of vehicles dyanamic perfomance. including the straight line stability.... anyway people here know more i guess.. no offence (i work for bayerische)
	() Thanks

16th June 2007, 16:15	#23
doctorque BHPian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Mumbai Posts: 565 Thanked: 404 Times	hey GTO, would agree to what youve said as of now, because i havent got an opportunity yet to strech a 320 Ds legs... It might feels wafty at speeds, still needs to b checked out by myself... anyway please keep giving reviews on all beemers, will help me in improving my skills at office. Regards, Kunal
	() Thanks

16th June 2007, 19:14	#24
drifter Senior - BHPian Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Bombay Posts: 1,488 Thanked: 75 Times View My Garage	Does the 320d come with runflats? Because i've found the c200 ride much better than the bmw. Drifter
	() Thanks

16th June 2007, 22:06	#26
drifter Senior - BHPian Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Bombay Posts: 1,488 Thanked: 75 Times View My Garage	Then i cant agree that the ride on the 320d was better than the c220. I've had a taste of these run-flats and didn't like them at all. Infact the only thing going for the C was the ride, otherwise it was outclassed by the bmw almost everywhere. Thats what I felt. Drifter
	() Thanks

18th June 2007, 11:15	#27
GTO Team-BHP Support Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Bombay Posts: 71,823 Thanked: 321,427 Times View My Garage	I find the C220 pretty harsh at lower speeds, and can get a tad uncomfortable on bad roads. However, the Beemer was much more compliant and absorbent on the broken chembur roads. Or maybe you are talking about the older C-Class? In that case, yes. It had superb ride quality but was on 15 inch tyres. The 16 inchers have made a whole lot of difference (negative) to the ride. Yes, it was on runflats at the time of test. Last edited by GTO : 18th June 2007 at 11:16.
	() Thanks

18th June 2007, 11:23	#28
drifter Senior - BHPian Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Bombay Posts: 1,488 Thanked: 75 Times View My Garage	Im talking about the new C, but looking at the photos, it seems the bmw is riding on 16inch rims. I drove with 17inch rims, so that explains it. Drifter Last edited by drifter : 18th June 2007 at 11:27.
	() Thanks

18th June 2007, 15:11	#29
GTO Team-BHP Support Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Bombay Posts: 71,823 Thanked: 321,427 Times View My Garage	Dude, you drove the monster 325!! Thats the only one with 17 inchers as standard. How was it? That engine has got to be one of the most free-revving "non-M's" around.
	() Thanks