what!?!

Its not a Rodius, but the repmobiles that I have seen OTR so far look a right mess - the worst offender is the rear from 3/4 to full on to 3/4!

A sorted example from ACS or the M Division may be a different matter, but the 'bog standard' models are hideous.

What worries me is that the 3 may well go the same way as the 7 & 5 series' in that the shapes and 'flame surfacing' make them very colour specific. Only dark colours - black/blue/antracite looks any good.

I expect the second hand market will be a disaster in a few years for any other than dark.

AndyS wrote: sleeper wrote: but the new 3 is so damn ugly!!! I think you need glasses! It looks great, tail lights could be a little better but other than that it's fine. Not the vast improvement the E46 made over the E36 perhaps but it's sharp & won't date too quickly.

Andy, I think you're the one who needs glasses.

The new 3 only looks slightly better than the new 5 which is horrible.

Driving in the car the other day and my wife says "God that's an ugly car, what is it?", "The new M5" I replied. "Oh" she said "is is one of those ones designed by that idiot", "yes, Chris bangle" I said, "he should be put in prison for that!" was her response.......I have to say she has a point......

5's cool, 3's only ok (I saw a white with sport kit on it which was cool though), 1 is cool, Z4 is cool... they just make everything else so.. dated looking. Go Bangle GO!

New IS is cool too. read that Times Article just there Killian - the 'ASC off' rigmarole is a farce. I read everywhere else though that the front end was very pointy; so much so that it feels a bit too tail happy in spirited driving. Perhaps that's why the ASC process is the way it is?

Steady on andy! you'll have us all queuing up to jump off a cliff with that!

You are right with the safety aspect, b****y pedestrian safety! Teach the idiots the green cross code and let us have nice looking cars again!!!

AndyS wrote: Well I'm not the one driving a Honda (although I did have a few in the '80's).

My Accord Type-R could be accused of looking bland, like a lot of Japanese cars, however the new Accord is a great looking car IMO. I would have the 2.4 vtec S version over a new 325 anyday. It might not be quite as good a drivers car but with the cash i'd save I could get an E30 M3 for the weekend

AndyS wrote: You've obviously instilled your wife with your prejudice - or maybe she was just winding you up a bit.

My prejudice? It's not prejudice just because i don't like the way a car looks. Besides my wife knows her own mind and what she likes and doesn't like has very little to do with what I think. Oh and it definately wasn't a wind up, after all I agreed with her

AndyS wrote: I don't see any of them reaching classic status for their looks but then neither will the E36 (which was always a bit of a mess inside & out) or E38 7-series & E39 5-series (both criticised for being too dull & conservative when launched).

I think the E36 and the E39 are great looking cars and I liked them the moment I saw them. The E39 M5 looks so much better than the new car. Oh and the new M5 lost even more of my respect since it was beaten round a track by the new Masarati quattroporte in EVO magazine. It's not even the king of the big saloons any more. 

.....personally I think my car looks good, certainly IMO a lot nicer than the new 3 series

sleeper wrote: ooooh! that's a quick looking pair of slippers that pete!

Fastest pair of slippers i've ever worn

Peter.

Its all down to taste, ( and I wish I could actually afford your car), but I dislike the look of it.

To me it looks like something the kids have knocked up in McDonalds car park !

But then again...I like the S type Jag, Rover 75 estate etc.

Nigel wrote: Peter. Its all down to taste

You are right Nigel. There is little point in argueing about asthetics since it is subjective and down to the individual. beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that

Nigel wrote: But then again...I like the S type Jag, Rover 75 estate etc.

I don't like the S-type jag at all. I do like the Rover 75 especially in MG form, although I don't really like any estates.

The new Accord influenced by bangle?? You really do need to get your eyes checked Andy

WRT to the E30, whether it has aged well appears to be a matter of opinion. My boss for instance said the other day how dated the E30 looks now compared to modern cars.  

m3tiko wrote: To the topic, can lexus match the bmw...However, we are a brand label loving nation and hence the BMW will be hard to beat.

I entirely agree with you Tiko.

Besides, Lexus is just a luxurious...Toyota. FULL STOP

I'm afraid to say I think the E90 3-series is a disaster.

The sales will tell you the same too - the car is simply not selling anything like BMW expected it too.  I only recently discovered this and was also told that a 'redesign' of the rear end is seriously being considered right now.

I cannot help but think of the Badge Test when I look at it.

That is, remove the badges and replace them with any you feel fit.  When I look at an E90 3-series and do this I find myself rather concerned that those badges that seem most appropriate are of South Korean origin.  It looks remarkably like any of the rubbish (in terms of design) to have come from SK in the last 10 years.

All of this is a disaster because the 3-series is technically the best in its class by quite some margin.  It's an excellent car it drive in any guise (and the 320d is astonishly good) but they've made a major mess of the car on the exterior in my opinion.

The E92 Coupe is already having a rear end rethink - before it comes out. 

The E92 M3 is possibly going to be delayed from May 2007 to September 2007 - because they're aware they just cannot afford to get it wrong, especially in light of the Audi RS4 which is currently putting paid to everything else in the class.

the RS4 really is very good, I agree, and they must get the M3 right.

The only 'get outs' I can see will be a) restricting the M3 to coupe only - mking it non-direct competition with the RS4 and b) RWD vs. 4WD who have their stuanch supporters in the dynamics league, which will again provide distance between the two vehicles.

So BMW do have room for a (dare I say it!) 'cop-out'!!

I don't think it matters if BMW only make it a coupe, it will never avoid comparison with the RS4 no matter what they do. TBH the RS4 isn't there biggest problem, it is the outgoing M3 with they need to beat. In EVO this month the e46 M3 CS beat the RS4 in a group test.

the sales of the e90 have not being what they were first thought they was going to be

i can only go by what the sales guys tell me ;but in there eyes there commisions havent been what they had hoped

the e46 sold far quicker when it was launched[fact]

its been mainly companys that are replacing there fleets that seem to buying them

only my 2 pennys worth on the subject

AndyS wrote: You were also told the M6 wasn't selling & yet I read that the years allocation is all sold out! Maybe your informant isn't that accurate.

Andy, I'm afraid that simply isn't true.

If someone wanted to buy an M6 tomorrow, brand new, they could do.

Ring up any main dealer and they'll bite your hand off.

Since my review of the M6 I've been offered another two.  It's spin and nothing more.  The car is not selling well at all.

sleeper

its spin in my eyes

true sales of the 320d has had strong first sales performance .but who was ordering them ?? hmmm  companys that buy 3 series for there mid mangement every 3 years

but iam sure others mite beg to differ

In reference to the E46 v E90 3-series sales....

Bulk, fleet, massaged sales.  Look on the roads, you'll get your most accurate reading from them - how many E90's do you see?

It's not a supply issue either, nor a production one.

Forget anything you read in the magazines - wait until BMW GB release their figures (which they have to).  In the UK (which incidentally is where I was referring to), the E90 is not selling as well as forecast.

It should be noted that I said "as well as BMW expected it to" - they are missing forecast by a mile. 

Craig, I would agree on the early corp sales boom, mostly sold before there was anything physical no doubt!

thinking of my business associates who have gone for BMW in the past, they have all opted out or run Audi because of the residuals. Even a fleet manager friend of mine has mostly blue ovals now.... 

Audi are stealing a large number of BMW customers right now.

Take an A4 for example, B6 or B7.

The interior is better, the paintwork is better (much).  The build quality is far superior now and the engines are getting better all the time (the RS4 being a prime example).

However, they do have one major fly in the ointment.  By comparison to your average BMW dealer, your Audi dealer treatment is absolutely appalling.  Their servicing costs are also now significantly higher (particularly on the diesel models).

That said, the A4 was the car of my choice when I choose between it and a 320d Tourer - and other than the fact it has the most horrid ESP system for it's naff FWD, it beats the 320d into the ground on build, interior, finish, everything (it's slightly slower than the 320d, but not that you'd notice over a short run).

Agreed on the A4, I have use of an avant V6 TDI quattro tip and it really is a fantastic car - quick, quiet and solid. easy on diesel for a big CC 4WD too.

odd comment about the service... I have always had better service from audi - heritage of salisbury, tonbridge, swindon & cirencester audi - than anyone else!

None of these have had higher labour rates than Cooper or Vines BMW (or ML for that matter- but thats another story) who I use for my car. 

My comments on Audi servicing are made on the basis of hundreds of posts I see regularly from other owners (TSN).  Their major gripe is VAG Customer Care.

In respect of what I said about servicing costs, well I can give a very relevant example:

My wifes 54 plate 320d SE - First Oil Service - £174.

My 54 plate A4 Avant TDi 130 S - First Oil Service - £278.

Most people complain about the cost of oil at £11 per litre too.

Of course this is all really a matter for personal experience, and different people will report different things.  It doesn't help when the head of the VAG group comes out and says he doesn't know why everybody wants a VW or Audi instead of a Skoda "because all we do is put a different badge on, use a few different materials, and hike the price up by a much bigger margin".

Gee, that was a clever thing to say!!!!

I'd still give BMW the nod on the basis that their engines across the range still make Audi's seem poor by comparison.

I don't think the A6 competes with the 5-series well at all, and sales back that up.  I might not like the shape of the 5 (and prefer the A6) but it's a remarkably good all rounder.

The new A4 is better than the 3-series by quite some way in my opinion.  However, I'd take a 1-series over an A3 for the sheer fun in the drive.  The 6-series doesn't have an Audi equal (yet) and I think the 7 and A8 are evenly matched. 

The TT is dated and one of the most boring cars of it's type I have ever driven (including the 3.2 DSG).  On that basis I'd take a Z4.

Finally, M cars on the whole still hold one over RS's - but the competition is all set to heat up in that area anyway so it'll be ineteresting to see what happens.

If there was one thing I wish BMW would bring up to Audi standards it is the paintwork - they're miles behind Audi in respect of the quality of finish.  BMW paintwork also chips an awful lot easier in my experience.

Hmm, well I can't agree that Audi owners want people to know they can afford their cars.

If anything I'd say it's very much the opposite.  From the people I know on TSN they'll all very quickly say it is the image of BMW that puts them off more than anything - they want the more anonymous or understated image of Audi.

I'd also disagree regarding the Audi brand appealing to people with no real interest in cars - in fact I think that too is more applicable to BMW owners, many of whom buy the badge.

In my experience Audi owners tend to know a great deal more about their cars than your average BMW owner.

I don't think the A4 is comprehensively beaten by the 3-series either, not by a very long way.  I'd pick an A4 over a new 3-series every time as things stand right now.

AndyS wrote: Like an S4 is any more understated than an M3!

I think an S4 is significantly more understated than an M3, by a huge margin in fact!

It is very easy to mistake an S4 for any A4 if you don't catch sight of the rear tailpipes.  An M3 is much more discernable as an M3 car with it's flared arches, bonnet, wing grilles, wheels etc etc.

Indeed, most S4 owners I know (and I know a good few) will say that and the V8 are the primary reasons for not buying an M3.  In their opinion (not mine) the M3 is far too 'in your face'.

The new RS4 is a somewhat different animal of course, because that makes even an M3 look timid with it's stance.  The flared arches are huge.

Ultimately, I'm not loyal to either.  I'll buy whatever I think is the best car when I come to purchase it.  If it's a BMW, I'll buy one.  If it's an Audi, so be it.

As things stand right now we're not too far off changing my wifes 320d SE....and what will replace that is anyones guess!  She changes her mind every day.

lets face it chaps audis arnt really a drivers car[apart from RS types] theres very litlle driving experiance/feel in any audi that i have had the great pleasure in driving

even the latest RS types offer nothing more than a solid and a planted to the road feeling type of driving experiance;to me thats nothing but boring  

on the other hand take all the driving aids off an e46 m3 and floor the thing hard around a race track then see what makes a car great rather than good

iam not saying audis are bad  far from it ;there great cars to drive and to own but not really in the same driver/involvement as a RWD car

dare i say it but arnt audi drivers a little bit boring in the fact they dont want to enjoy the driver involvment of say a RWD car

pma1ums wrote: lets face it chaps audis arnt really a drivers car[apart from RS types] theres very litlle driving experiance/feel in any audi that i have had the great pleasure in driving even the latest RS types offer nothing more than a solid and a planted to the road feeling type of driving experiance;to me thats nothing but boring

Was still surprises me is the difference between the standard FWD and the quattro with sport susp. & seats. If you drove the two blindfold () you could be forgiven for thinking they were from different manufacturers.

The A4 I use has the above sport bits, and there is more communication from the front wheels than my E36! (probably the weakest BMW in this area I know).

Having driven most models, I wouldn't buy one that wasn't sport equipped, if I had the money - RS6 all the way (& E34 & E39 M5, alpina B10 V8s, B10 Bi-Turbo, UR-Quattro, etc. etc.)

pma1ums wrote: iam not saying audis are bad  far from it ;there great cars to drive and to own but not really in the same driver/involvement as a RWD car dare i say it but arnt audi drivers a little bit boring in the fact they dont want to enjoy the driver involvment of say a RWD car

get a peach of a drift on and then let your grin do the talking!!

sleeper wrote: pma1ums wrote: iam not saying audis are bad  far from it ;there great cars to drive and to own but not really in the same driver/involvement as a RWD car dare i say it but arnt audi drivers a little bit boring in the fact they dont want to enjoy the driver involvment of say a RWD car get a peach of a drift on and then let your grin do the talking!!

now your talking

ive yet to experiance the pleasure of getting a four wheel drive car sliding about on a race track ;untill then il just drift beemers about on them

Coasting wrote: I don't think the A6 competes with the 5-series well at all, and sales back that up.  I might not like the shape of the 5 (and prefer the A6) but it's a remarkably good all rounder.

i wouldn't have either. The 5 is ugly and the A6 bland. If I was in the market for a car like that i'd get a Jag XJ and sod the residuals. It might not be as sporting as a 5 but who buys a car that big to be sporting?

Coasting wrote: The new A4 is better than the 3-series by quite some way in my opinion.

Again wouldn't buy either, I'd get an Accord. I do like the Audi though.

Coasting wrote: However, I'd take a 1-series over an A3 for the sheer fun in the drive.  The 6-series doesn't have an Audi equal (yet) and I think the 7 and A8 are evenly matched.

Don't like the 1 or the A3. Why spend that much on a hatchback. I'd get a second hand focus and spend what I'd saved on something for the weekend

Coasting wrote: The TT is dated and one of the most boring cars of it's type I have ever driven (including the 3.2 DSG).  On that basis I'd take a Z4.

I'd get either a 350z or a Boxster.

Coasting wrote: Finally, M cars on the whole still hold one over RS's - but the competition is all set to heat up in that area anyway so it'll be ineteresting to see what happens.

The E46 M3 is still the car I'd go for in that sector; although I'd proabably end up buying a second hand 911 instead. The new RS4 looks the part and is supposed to be very good, but as i said earlier, EVO still rated the E46 M3 CS higher. The M5, no thanks. I don't see the point in trying to make a car that big and heavy sporty. All the reviews I've read say that it struggles to hide its weight when pushed hard. If you want a 5 get a standard one and with the change get a real sports car. 

The only have to go into a BMW showroom to realise a lot of buyers are only after the badge.

Peter Fenwick wrote: Coasting wrote: I don't think the A6 competes with the 5-series well at all, and sales back that up.  I might not like the shape of the 5 (and prefer the A6) but it's a remarkably good all rounder. i wouldn't have either. The 5 is ugly and the A6 bland. If I was in the market for a car like that i'd get a Jag XJ and sod the residuals. It might not be as sporting as a 5 but who buys a car that big to be sporting? Coasting wrote: The new A4 is better than the 3-series by quite some way in my opinion.  Again wouldn't buy either, I'd get an Accord. I do like the Audi though. Coasting wrote: However, I'd take a 1-series over an A3 for the sheer fun in the drive.  The 6-series doesn't have an Audi equal (yet) and I think the 7 and A8 are evenly matched.  Don't like the 1 or the A3. Why spend that much on a hatchback. I'd get a second hand focus and spend what I'd saved on something for the weekend Coasting wrote: The TT is dated and one of the most boring cars of it's type I have ever driven (including the 3.2 DSG).  On that basis I'd take a Z4. I'd get either a 350z or a Boxster. Coasting wrote: Finally, M cars on the whole still hold one over RS's - but the competition is all set to heat up in that area anyway so it'll be ineteresting to see what happens. The E46 M3 is still the car I'd go for in that sector; although I'd proabably end up buying a second hand 911 instead. The new RS4 looks the part and is supposed to be very good, but as i said earlier, EVO still rated the E46 M3 CS higher. The M5, no thanks. I don't see the point in trying to make a car that big and heavy sporty. All the reviews I've read say that it struggles to hide its weight when pushed hard. If you want a 5 get a standard one and with the change get a real sports car.  The only have to go into a BMW showroom to realise a lot of buyers are only after the badge.

Say's he who drives a Honda,  

bmw1066 wrote: Say's he who drives a Honda,

Which is relevant why? It wouldn't matter if I drove a Lada, my opinion is as relevant as the next person. I also chose to buy a Honda instead of a BMW for a reason..............

sleeper wrote: poor old pete - never hear the end of the honda thing!

People can say anything they like about my car. The fact of the matter is it's more performance focused than any car BMW  have made in the last 10 years 

I like Hondas. Alot. Driving them for some time and you can see the engineering quality shine through in every aspect of ownership. If the Accord was RWD I'd have one over the equivalent-bhp'd 3, deffo. (I think saying it is more performance-orientated than any BMW in the last 10yrs is stretching credibility a bit tho )

If the 166 was RWD, I'd have one over the equivalent-bhp'd E39.

If I'd the budget for an M5, I'd buy the Q'porte - EVOs beating of the M5 was only the icing on the cake.

The only reason I'm with BMW is cos they handle & are RWD. I'd really like more sporting RWD options to be honest. 

T.J. wrote: If the 166 was RWD, I'd have one over the equivalent-bhp'd E39.

you like to throw money away then?

T.J. wrote: I like Hondas. Alot. Driving them for some time and you can see the engineering quality shine through in every aspect of ownership. If the Accord was RWD I'd have one over the equivalent-bhp'd 3, deffo. (I think saying it is more performance-orientated than any BMW in the last 10yrs is stretching credibility a bit tho )

Ok then, name one. The only one I can think of is the M3 CSL. The E30 M3 is too old and i can't think of anything else.

Let me put it another way. How many cars have BMW made with no sound proofing? Driver electronioc aids other than ABS. I believe all BMWs have traction control don't they? The Accord Type-R really is a lot more hardcore than even I thought it would be. No aircon, no leather, no cruise conrol, no trim on the inside of the boot lid. The only mod cons are electric windows, electric mirrors and a cd player. How many BMWs have they made that have sacrified so many driver comforts in the name of saving weight?

Andy your talking rubbish. You are right the Accord type-R has a high power band, ie the vtec doesn't come in until 5800 rpm. However before this it still has plenty of go, in fact it is just as quick as any other 2.2 litre n/a car. It will still pull from 30mph in fifth without any problems and when you look at the in gear accelleration times it isn't that far behind the 328. This is achieved by having low gearing. 5th is equivalent to 4th in an e36 328. Once you pass 5800 rpm the accelleration is explosive. To liken the 2.2 vtec engine to an unbalanced std engine is just stupid. It has a much higher output than the 2.2 engine they used in the previous acccord model. 

Just because something is RWD doesn't make it performance focused. A smart car is RWD.

These days, on the basic models, the RWD bit is more of a marketing device than an actual performance credential. Your more likely to get a Ford focus to oversteer than an 318i and in fact

Spokey, I thought all BMWs even non se cars came with aircon as std. They certainly all have sound proofing

In order to save weight the ATR has dipensed with sound proofing, and bits of unecessary trim. It has very few creature comforts, it comes with an LSD, recaro bucket seats, stiff sports suspension (which is excellent on bumpy roads btw) and additional front and rear bracing as standard. All these things actually compromise the cars comfort and refinement, but then it is has been made to do one thing, drive fast and it does it very well. On a twisty road it would leave all but M BMWs for dead. BMWs however all come with lots of sound proofing, new models, except maybe some of the smaller engined cars, come with traction control and other driver aids. Most have aircon as standard (the sport models definately do along with a host of other gismos) My point is that BMW have made their cars refined to appeal to their customers, even M cars have high spec leather, climate etc. By making them refined they have removed at least part of the focus from purely performance. Thi is not a critisism it is simply a fact. The accord has none of these feature because it is not meant to be refined, which is why is is more peformance focused than all BMWs bar the M3CSL. In fact the approach BMW took to the ATR is similar to that taken by BMW with the CSL. I certainly don't think reduction in trim is to save money. It may have enabled them to keep the list price lower, but the cost of the extras (LSD etc) must have more than outweighted the  saving on trim etc. BMWs with low spec are stingy because a low spec BMW doesn't even come with alloys and it is not low spec in order to save weight. People expect BMWs to be luxurious, the don't expect Type-R Hondas to be. 

Have you driven an Accord, integra type-R? I wouldn't include the civic because it has no LSD and the creature comforts are there in order to make it appeal to a wider audience.

spokey wrote: Peter Fenwick wrote: Your more likely to get a Ford focus to oversteer than an 318i and in fact B*ll*cks. Especially when the 318i is an E30.  I drove an Accord recently as a loan car. I nearly fell asleep it was so boring. It would take a LOT more than a hot engine to make it a driver's car, but since I haven't driven a Type-R Accord, I can't comment on it.

In my original comment any car made in the last 10 years. I think the E30 is a lot older than that. BMW have dialled out the oversteer characterisitics out of their later cars to make them safer for the majority of owners.  

My point is the Accord type-R is a lot more than just a cooking accord with a hot engine. Trust me it is so much more. The difference is  similar to  that between a 320 and an M3. A standard accord would make anyone go to sleep.

I asked Tiff Needel on the fifth Gear website aftershow chat room what he would go for, an accord type-r or a BMW 328/330. His response was it depends what you want, a hardcore road racer or a refined rapid cruiser.

spokey wrote: I think an E36 318i would step out a lot easier than a Ford Focus as well (having driven both.)

i do have to agree with that

the focus needs a hard in to the corner then lift off the power to at least make the back end want to even think about comeing out.on the other hand show an asmatic 4 cylinder bmw[or other RWD] car then its a diffrent matter to allow the odd cheeky slide

spokey wrote: I think an E36 318i would step out a lot easier than a Ford Focus as well (having driven both.)

Are you sure. My 328 would only step out at the back if I got on the power mid bend. Otherwise it just tended to understeer. Also My wifes focus can be made to lift off oversteer, unlike my 328. In fact if the BMW ever did lose the back end mid corner, backing off brought it back again. I have read a lot of reviews about the lower powered 3 series models saying that you wouldn't know it was a rwd car by the way it drives.

spokey wrote:

no more ugly than a honda meeting a bmw in a head on smash

AndyS wrote:   And no torque until 4500rpm which meant if you were caught in the wrong gear the Vicars wife in her Nova would leave you for dead.

You're an enthusiast out on a brisk drive:  why would you be caught in the wrong gear?? Now if you like surfing along on a wave of torque, then fair enough. But no one I know goes out on a blast and short shifts. If you do, buy a diesel. You'll get alot more rewards than my 328i for example (which doesn't come on cam till nearly 4 grand and runs out of puff before 6k unless I do an M50 manifold conversion).

I agree the ATR, ITR, & CTR powerbands are way up there. But you just drive up there. Like in a 330CD, where you drive down there. They both go like stink, just in different ways. EVO magazine did a twin test between the Accord Type-R & a Scooby back in 98/99 and it was very interesting, with the Accord impressing them greatly in most elements of performance driving including traction (and it was pouring for the duration of the test) and cross country speed. Yes they said it lacked the bang out of bends the Scooby had, but it still kept with it no problems.

So the Accord has the speed more than covered if you are prepared and enjoy the way you have to access it.  It quite light for a large 4dr saloon, which may negate it's torque difficiency, may cut costs, but also enhances said performance - not to mention handling. As contemporary tests showed, it performed very well on UK asphalt compared to leaders such as Scooby, 328i et al. It has additional shell bracing across suspension points. It has reduced equipment. It has serious performance chairs in it. Which means it's quite focused. And before someone restarts the "reduced equipment & trim doesn't mean it's focused, just it's crap jap quality/price cutting" malarkey, look a t all the performance-focused icons out there: Clio Cup, M3 CSL, 360 Stradale, GT3, STI WRX RA, EVO gazillions.... all minimal kit to reduce weight to the direct benefit of sticker price in some instances, but also weight. Even BMWs cynical marketing exercise that was the 330Ci Clubsport boasted weight reduction by a couple of KGs soundproofing removal.

Now, I think something does need clarification. We need to compare Hondas Type-R with BMWs M-power. In this instance, both are quite focused on performance, and I don't think you can say one is more or less than the other. Someone mentioned the NSX was soft; an NSX-R is NOT. A 545i is soft - a V10 M5 with 7 speed SMG is NOT.

Hondas Type R range are lower down the price chain than M-power. So it's a bit unfair to compare Accord-TRs to equivalent price 328s when they were designed for different things. The TR is of course going to be more performance orientated. Comparing the bread&butter models, it could be argued that the BMW is more performance-orientated... how many standard Accords do you see out on a trackday compared to 320i etc - is this to do with the driver profile or the car? Is it only because of RWD?

And regarding the Focus comments - you can't get a Focus to power oversteer out of a roundabout, but you get them to trail brake into bends with the tail out more than a 318i, and they are just as much fun to pedal along in my opinion. I had a FANTASTIC drive from Castle Combe to Thruxton one wet April in a 115bhp TDCi.

PS can you believe an IS250 has struck up all this debate?!? I think Lexus has employed Killian to kick off this post to make us fight amongst ourselves and try to destroy BMW loyalty, in the hope some of us will defect.

So wots the kickback, Bannon? How thick was the brown envelope! Whats that? "A bag of money" you say...

AndyS wrote: If there's any rubbish being talked it's coming out of your backside.

Crap frequently comes out of my backside

AndyS wrote: I made the point about the CRX making 130bhp but having no torque low down because, no matter how much bhp it has it's still just a 1600. Bhp is just torque x revs (ask any motorcyclist where there power band is). Consequently, your 2.2 vtec has the same torque as any other engine of similar capacity. The fact that it's peak power is at some astronomically high figure is of little consequence as by the time you have got there the car with low down torque is gone.

Only if you drive at the same rpm as the car with low down torque. My 328 was beaten by a seat cupra TDI until I got past 4k and caught up. As I said before the ATR's gear ratios are different so at any given speed it tends to be reving higher than most other cars. This means that it is closer to it's power band. Now once you hit the vtec it is posssible to keep it there, so as long as you don't sit at 50mph in 5th and expect to keep up with a car with a big engine or TDI then it is fine. If you want low down torque buy a diesel. They do it much better than any petrol car.

AndyS wrote: You make the point about lower refinement making the car more focused. Utter cr@p. Ferrari's are the most refined they've ever been. So they're less focused as drivers cars?

NO it isn't

The ferari F40, which is often picked as Ferraris best car,has absolutley no refinements. When ferrari wanted to make a more focused version of the 360 what did they do????? Reduced weight, rediced refinements. Also I didn't say driver focused, I said performance focused. How many racing cars have heated leater seats, traction control, sound insulation.

AndyS wrote: I made the point about rear wheel drive as the only benefit of rwd is that it frees the front wheels to steer & the back wheels to drive giving better chassis balance. That's driver focus to the exclusion of space & cost. Front wheel drive is chosen by the majority of manufacturers for lower production costs & interior space reasons. That's why BMW have a more sporting line up than Honda. I don't see any front wheel drive cars on the grid for F1!

I aslo don't see any cars with sound insulation, aircon, leather, climate etc. The fact the Honda is FWD is the one downside in its performance credentials, but then most touring cars are FWD. The ATR isn't a ground up performance car like say a porsche, but then neither is an M3.

AndyS wrote: More than a cooking Accord with a hot motor. How exactly? It's a standard Accord bodyshell with a screamer engine, no suspension & a pram handle on the back. Hardly a homologation special is it?

It isn't a homologation special. How manu of those have BMW made recently

However it isn't just an accord with no suspension, a spoiler and a hot engine.

The body shell has been stiffened  by the addition of extra metal and strut braces. The ATR for instance couldn't have folding rear seats because the bulkhead behind them has got a lot of extra bracing.

It has it's own engine gear box and Limited slip differential.

The suspension is stiffer, but it does still ride the bumps very well, infact at speed over a bumpy road it is as good as my 328 if not better and the body as a whole is a lot stiffer.

The brakes are bigger, 300mm on the front, and it has 2 pot calipers up front. The same as those fitted to the NSX.

The seats proper reccaros with the adjustable leg rest.

The weight has been kept to a minimum by removing sound proofing under bonet and boot trim as well as a whole host of electrical items that cooking Accords come with.  

AndyS wrote: You chose to move away from BMW to Honda & that's fine, it's your choice. But don't try to tell us your Honda's so much better than our BMW's, it just doesn't wash.

I didn't try to tell anyone my car was better than your BMWs. I simply said it was more performance focused. As an all rounder my car is rubbish compared to a 3 series. It is noisy inside, the lack of aircon makes it hot in the summer, the low gear ratios makes it get the same fuel economy as my 328 despite the smaller engine, the ECU is set up to run on Super UL which is more expensive. The ride comfort, especially over speed bumps isn't as good, it hasn't got the effortless grunt that my 328 had. However when you just want to drive quickly it is a lot better. It encourages you to push it to it's limits in a way my 328 never did. I have hit the rev limiter many times simply because it want't to rev. I don't think I hit it once im my BM. The handling is sharper simply because it weighs 100kg less and the LSD gives it a staggering amount of traction out of bends. 

They could have put all the toys in as well and made up for it by putting a bigger engine in, like BMW have done with the M3. It is a very fast car but has all the luxuries you could want. However if they had done that it would have cost a lot more and been a totally different beast. BMW did something simliar with the CSL which didn't even come with a radio as standard, and had a carboard boot floor, my cars is made from corrugated plastic so I won't be using it to transport bags of cement..

It is not better, just different. It's been aimed at a different market. My initial comment was merely in response to a dig someone made.

Oh and some days I would like my 328 back, others I wouldn't swap the accord for anything else. If I had a lot more money I would have gone for an M3 but I didn't and the 3 series I could have got for the same cash wouldn't have been anything like as fun to drive. Would I go back to BMW? Yes without a doubt, but not for any of their current models 

T.J. wrote: AndyS wrote:   And no torque until 4500rpm which meant if you were caught in the wrong gear the Vicars wife in her Nova would leave you for dead.  You're an enthusiast out on a brisk drive:  why would you be caught in the wrong gear?? Now if you like surfing along on a wave of torque, then fair enough. But no one I know goes out on a blast and short shifts. If you do, buy a diesel. You'll get alot more rewards than my 328i for example (which doesn't come on cam till nearly 4 grand and runs out of puff before 6k unless I do an M50 manifold conversion). I agree the ATR, ITR, & CTR powerbands are way up there. But you just drive up there. Like in a 330CD, where you drive down there. They both go like stink, just in different ways. EVO magazine did a twin test between the Accord Type-R & a Scooby back in 98/99 and it was very interesting, with the Accord impressing them greatly in most elements of performance driving including traction (and it was pouring for the duration of the test) and cross country speed. Yes they said it lacked the bang out of bends the Scooby had, but it still kept with it no problems. So the Accord has the speed more than covered if you are prepared and enjoy the way you have to access it.  It quite light for a large 4dr saloon, which may negate it's torque difficiency, may cut costs, but also enhances said performance - not to mention handling. As contemporary tests showed, it performed very well on UK asphalt compared to leaders such as Scooby, 328i et al. It has additional shell bracing across suspension points. It has reduced equipment. It has serious performance chairs in it. Which means it's quite focused. And before someone restarts the "reduced equipment & trim doesn't mean it's focused, just it's crap jap quality/price cutting" malarkey, look a t all the performance-focused icons out there: Clio Cup, M3 CSL, 360 Stradale, GT3, STI WRX RA, EVO gazillions.... all minimal kit to reduce weight to the direct benefit of sticker price in some instances, but also weight. Even BMWs cynical marketing exercise that was the 330Ci Clubsport boasted weight reduction by a couple of KGs soundproofing removal. Now, I think something does need clarification. We need to compare Hondas Type-R with BMWs M-power. In this instance, both are quite focused on performance, and I don't think you can say one is more or less than the other. Someone mentioned the NSX was soft; an NSX-R is NOT. A 545i is soft - a V10 M5 with 7 speed SMG is NOT. Hondas Type R range are lower down the price chain than M-power. So it's a bit unfair to compare Accord-TRs to equivalent price 328s when they were designed for different things. The TR is of course going to be more performance orientated. Comparing the bread&butter models, it could be argued that the BMW is more performance-orientated... how many standard Accords do you see out on a trackday compared to 320i etc - is this to do with the driver profile or the car? Is it only because of RWD? And regarding the Focus comments - you can't get a Focus to power oversteer out of a roundabout, but you get them to trail brake into bends with the tail out more than a 318i, and they are just as much fun to pedal along in my opinion. I had a FANTASTIC drive from Castle Combe to Thruxton one wet April in a 115bhp TDCi.

Well said TJ. I should have read you're thread before I responded to Andy's since you'd already covered most of my points.

You also can't get a 318 to power oversteer out of a roundabout unless it is very slippery out, which was my point.

Peter Fenwick wrote:  I would like my 328 back

i thought you mite at least given the honda a few more months peter

sorry i just had to throw that one in

but yes you are indeed correct .you have got a lot of car for your money .yes an M3 would be better but in a real world we are limited to our budgets

pma1ums wrote: Peter Fenwick wrote:  I would like my 328 back i thought you mite at least given the honda a few more months peter sorry i just had to throw that one in but yes you are indeed correct .you have got a lot of car for your money .yes an M3 would be better but in a real world we are limited to our budgets

I only said on some days. Normally when i'm stuck in traffic or driving on a motorway.

An M3 would have been better because it is a better compromise between performance and comfort. I could have stretched to an E36 3.2 Evo but the running costs would have killed me  

spokey wrote: Peter Fenwick wrote: spokey wrote: I think an E36 318i would step out a lot easier than a Ford Focus as well (having driven both.) Are you sure. My 328 would only step out at the back if I got on the power mid bend. Otherwise it just tended to understeer. Also My wifes focus can be made to lift off oversteer, unlike my 328. In fact if the BMW ever did lose the back end mid corner, backing off brought it back again. I have read a lot of reviews about the lower powered 3 series models saying that you wouldn't know it was a rwd car by the way it drives. Errrr .... every BMW I've ever driven would straighten out by backing off if the tail started sliding ... provided you started steering into the slide or caught it very early. Otherwise even a 318 would just slide (sideways) to a stop. I know, because they used to use E36 318's at the skidpan.

But a skid pan is designed to be very slippery. In normal dry conditions it is very difficult to get an e36 to step out at the back. If you go in too fast they simply understeer, You need to put enough power down when exiting to brake the rear wheel traction. Not very easy in a car with fat tyres and only a 1.8. BMW designed the e36 suspension to remove the tail happy nature that the E30 had. A skid pan is supposed to represnt road conditions at their worst. A focus can be made to lift off oversteer in any weather. A 318 will only power oversteer in very slippery conditions.

& even @ that, it'll spin alot of power out the inside wheel, so you need to bung it in @ decent speed to get roll oversteer, and then continue it on with the power as long as possible. Limmos transform the BM's. Now if they made a RWD focus...  (only messin', before I get lynched!)

spokey wrote: Peter Fenwick wrote: You need to put enough power down when exiting to brake the rear wheel traction. It's called "driving", Peter.

Really!

I'm glad you pointed that out.

As TJ says without a LSD most BMs, when they break traction at the rear, will simply spin the power away through the inside wheel. My 328 certainly would. Even it would only really break away from the back end in wet conditions. In the dry you'd have to be driving like a madman, far to fast for public roads. 

If you genuninely can get an e36 316/318 to slide from the back on a roundabout in the dry then I take my hat off to you.

he he he!  no worries!!

E21 323i - the car for the man with side window wipers!!

A Caterham is just a little bit too impractical for me. I think an elise would be about as minimalist as I'd be prepared to go. After all I need to drive my car every day. A caterham is a weekend car at best.

Noble M400.

All the dangers....and enough power to REALLLLLLLY hurt when it all goes wrong!

The benefit is that you'd be protected by a tubular spaceframe that is about to make the M12 the first car to have it's roof chopped off.....and not need a single piece of extra strengthening.  As ridiculous as that sounds, it's true.  Not a single ounce of extra weight and the car will lap in the same time as the hardtop!!!!

I don't want one.  I do need one.

... best to have that 'brown trouser' moment before you get in so, and thus be 'fully optimised' for lightweight motoring!!

If the Noble needs no extra strengthening, would it not be even a little bit lighter than its fixed roof brother? Or is the hood/targa arrangement around the same weight? I can't wait to read what that new Noble is like - expectations are high based on their current models.

Going back to the topic a mo, you're right AndyS the tail out isn't the fastest way. But as a fun thing to do tis great!  You don't really get the tail out on public roads anyway except on roundabouts, junctions, and the odd well sighted corner. And on the track getting the fastest possible lap is only half the story - if you're not specifically keeping up or trying to lose someone, then steering with the rear is primarily what you're at, and is a bit of a holy grail for alot of enthusiasts.

... and having a game of Simon says with brake pedal, key, TC button etc isn't exactly encouraging a bit of tailout, is it?!

So Shame On YOU, Lexus!  (thought I'd steer things back on topic there )