I'm thinking of buying this car ... opinions please

Ger the man

My 'opinion' is that you should buy japanese. As previoulsy mentioned; superb reliability and a younger car with less mileage for same money, and possibly cheaper insurance.

S.I.R

1750 for a 92 e36 TU ??? sorry but i have to lmfao.

you might aswell be " p****** into the wind " at price like that. :rolleyes:

Gandalf23

S.I.R wrote: »

1750 for a 92 e36 TU ??? sorry but i have to lmfao.

you might aswell be " p****** into the wind " at price like that. :rolleyes:

?

cantdecide

If we all took the safest bet, most of us would probably have different cars.

If the OP has revised his budget up to a more sensible €4k+, which I think he has, he should be able to easily get an older modest spec 'fancy' car that has FSH in great condition. He might not find it straight away but as long as he finds a suitable specialist, minds it and doesn't cripple it with mileage or abuse there is no reason to not expect it be *reliable.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the OP meant *'reliable enough that it won't let me down on a stormy night and reliable enough that I won't have to worry about expensive surgery a week after buying it'. I think that's what most people on here would define as reliable.

If he wanted a maintenance free car then what he needs is a €10k japanese hatch with less than 50k on the clock but I've not seen him ask about such a car.

Gandalf23

cantdecide wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the OP meant 'reliable enough that it won't let me down on a stormy night and reliable enough that I won't have to worry about expensive surgery a week after buying it'. I think that's what most people on here would define as reliable.

Bullseye!

I'm not stupid enough to expect a guaranteed no hassle, no maintenance car that will drive flawlessly for the next 25 years and maintain its resale value. I dont want to buy something that will have a serious flaw (that might be hidden or that I wont see) that will make the car a brick within the first few months.

I'm revising my budget for peace of mind. I just want something "reliable" for the next year or so, and a 6 month warrenty gives that little extra peace of mind.

Anan1

Gandalf23 wrote: »

I've decided to spend a few more € to go up a few years. I'm looking at a 1996 BMW 318 with 150k miles on the clock for about €4000. The guy is giving me a 6 month warrenty and the car looks and drives really well.

Its more than I wanted or can really afford to spend, but I think it takes some of the gamble out of things. Opinions?

It really depends on the actual car. If it's in genuinely excellent condition, with a full, verifiable service history and a long NCT then it might be the one.

Gandalf23

Anan1 wrote: »

It really depends on the actual car. If it's in genuinely excellent condition, with a full, verifiable service history and a long NCT then it might be the one.

It has NCT till May 2009 and the service history is good. The fact that he's giving a warrenty sorta swinging it tbh.

unkel

Gandalf23 wrote: »

It has NCT till May 2009 and the service history is good. The fact that he's giving a warrenty sorta swinging it tbh.

Have it checked out by a mechanic anyway. Upping your budget is probably the sensible thing to do, but you do realise that if you sell in a years time, you won't get anywhere near what you paid for it?

tippbhoy

while at a quick glance the first would probably jump out at me as the best buy i.e best milage, NCT, I am a bit confused as to how the OP has picked his car.

I mean there is a big difference between a 2.0l petrol and a 1.6 petrol in terms of fuel economy, tax and insurance. The running costs of that type of car would be just as high as the purchase price. This is one of the main reasons big luxury cars depreciate so quickly as those who can afford to drive them won't drive an old one and they are costly to run regardless of age. 4 new tyres on that would nearly double the value.

i wouldn't buy any of them myself and would stick to something newer but in a lower range.

If not agreeable, then take the chance privately, 25% more expensive for a warranty in a garage is not worth offsetting the risk, get a mechanic to give it the look over privately.

cantdecide

tippbhoy wrote: »

I mean there is a big difference between a 2.0l petrol and a 1.6 petrol in terms of fuel economy, tax and insurance

Not really. It's all marginal all things considered.

tippbhoy

cantdecide wrote: »

Not really. It's all marginal all things considered.

really? All what considered? Tax is going up 10% this year, my car is 600 currently and is under 2.0l, a 1.6 can't be more than 4/450. .4l in fuel economy, Insurance a few hundred to be saved for that as well per annum.

All things considered, the 2.0l car is minimum 500 a year more to run, while you might say that is a tenner a week it tells me that it is a huge percentage of the value of the car. 500/2000 is 25% if this is so marginal then why doesn't the OP just go and buy a newer car. I don'tsee your point.

cantdecide

tippbhoy wrote: »

All things considered, the 2.0l car is minimum 500

That's one surprise repair bill away from exactly the same. That's life.

Insurance tends to be almost exactly the same, contrary to popular belief. I've gone from a 90hp diesel to an almost 200bhp V6 with no change to insurance.

So yes, 1.6 and 2.0 motoring tends to be virtually the same contrary to popular belief.

And I had a 325i and they say its more economical than a 320i. Revving a 1.6 out usually makes it about as economical as 2.0 I find. If there's a difference, it's marginal, like 3 or 4 mpg max.

Gandalf23

I just wanted to put this thread to bed by telling everyone I bought this

It looks ok, drives well, and the seller is giving a full warrenty for 6 months. Its not exactly what I was looking for and definately went well over budget, but I'm fairly happy. She should scrub up well too!

Thanks for all the help, advice, and comment guys ... it was carefully read and very much appreciated.

Anan1

Well wear!:)

E92

Very nice, and not a poverty spec car either considering it's age!(is that a leather interior I see?)

cantdecide

Nice. See if you can locate some M3 skrts. I like the wheels and the interior.

unkel

Best of luck with your new motor

Gandalf23

Thanks guys, and yes indeed that is a leather interior! Needs a lot of elbow grease tho!

tippbhoy

cantdecide wrote: »

That's one surprise repair bill away from exactly the same. That's life.

Insurance tends to be almost exactly the same, contrary to popular belief. I've gone from a 90hp diesel to an almost 200bhp V6 with no change to insurance.

So yes, 1.6 and 2.0 motoring tends to be virtually the same contrary to popular belief.

And I had a 325i and they say its more economical than a 320i. Revving a 1.6 out usually makes it about as economical as 2.0 I find. If there's a difference, it's marginal, like 3 or 4 mpg max.

my points are wasted on you, the 10% difference in fuel economy which is marginal seemingly :rolleyes:, the difference in tax which you avoided discussion on, and this mythical no change of insurance, my insurance changes by as much as 50% depending on the car.

JohnCleary

Make sure you get floor mats! (I dont see any in the pic)

cantdecide

Another way-

Buying and running car A) 1.6=X

Buying and running car 2.0=1.1(X) or 1.2(X) max.

Consider you generally get 2.0 cars cheaper than a 1.6 and the cost difference is more than covered by the difference in VALUE.

I've had all kinds of cars- fast, slow, big, small, new, old, petrol, diesel, estates, saloons, coupes, hatches, swedish, german, italian, japanese etc etc etc I think I'm pretty qualified to speak about relative cost differences between cars and a bog standard 1.6 vs a bog standard 2.0 is, contrary to popular belief, effectively the same.

Surprise repairs can make a cheap car expensive and reliability can make an expensive car cheap and you have no control over that. Conversely, an expensive car becomes unreliable can make an expensive car a total false economy so it is a real X factor.

If you're that hard up for the negligable difference between buying and running a 2.0 over a 1.6, it's better paying job is what you need.

(PS My whole point is that the difference isn't worth talking about. Therefore I'm not going oalking about it anymore.)

tippbhoy

cantdecide wrote: »

Another way-

(PS My whole point is that the difference isn't worth talking about. Therefore I'm not going oalking about it anymore.)

we'll have to agree to disagree on this one so, maybe if you're over 40 with cheap insurance and do about 5K miles a year the difference isn't worth talking about.

cantdecide

:)26 FYI now disagree all you want, it's not an opinion it's fact. End of.

Mac 3

OP , well wear with your purchase. You'll love it.

I run a 97 similar to yours and similar miles and it runs like a clock. Gets serviced when required and gets me all over the country comfortably and quickly. One thing to look out for on these is the cooling system, water pumps were known to go but I think BMW sorted that out with a re-design but no harm to change it at the next service anyway. They used to be about €20 for the genuine part. Look around on the net for advice for running and advice on buying parts, there are a few Irish BMW sites where there's plenty of knowledge and advice.

Mac.

Andrewf20

Yes, some of the E36 models had plastic impellers which were known to break. I put in a new one last year. The spurious ones from GSF and Otto have metal impellers and only cost a few notes. Probably worthwhile getting the coolant changed at the same time as well unless done recently.