BMW 328 E46-Crazy or Wat?!

solo1484

Any thoughts on a 328 e46?
whats the mpg like?
Am i mad??

Victor_M

solo1484 wrote: »

Any thoughts on a 328 e46?
whats the mpg like?
Am i mad??

28Mpg, beautiful car to drive, very quick. I had one for 3 years a while ago.

Same costs to maintain as any other BMW, with the exception of rear tyres and the annual road tax.

Factor in the Fuel/tax/tyres cost per annum and see if you can afford that without taking the fun out of the ownership.

Biro

They're not bad, but the 2.8 engine is carried over from the E36 and didn't last long in the E46, it was replaced by the 3 litre really as the range topper under the M3. 195bhp is OK, sounds good and performs adequately, but suffers from the Nikasil problems. Google for more info.
If I were buying it'd be a 330Ci.

kdevitt

Biro wrote: »

They're not bad, but the 2.8 engine is carried over from the E36 and didn't last long in the E46, it was replaced by the 3 litre really as the range topper under the M3. 195bhp is OK, sounds good and performs adequately, but suffers from the Nikasil problems. Google for more info.
If I were buying it'd be a 330Ci.

The engine wasn't carried over - its a different engine. The 328ci never had the nikasil issue either - you're getting slightly confused here.

They're a cracking car, preferred mine in many ways to my M3. They're the last of the 3ers to have a manual throttle, so they feel alot more responsive than the newer cars (325,330 etc).

Tax is a pain, not quite at M3 levels though. Just make sure the rear subframe isn't hanging off the car!

Elessar

Victor_M wrote: »

28Mpg, beautiful car to drive, very quick. I had one for 3 years a while ago.

Same costs to maintain as any other BMW, with the exception of rear tyres and the annual road tax.

Factor in the Fuel/tax/tyres cost per annum and see if you can afford that without taking the fun out of the ownership.

28 MPG?! If you are driving 90% on the motorway in 5th gear maybe! My E46 320 gets 22MPG urban driving, and that's a 2.2 litre.

Biro

kdevitt wrote: »

The engine wasn't carried over - its a different engine. The 328ci never had the nikasil issue either - you're getting slightly confused here.

They're a cracking car, preferred mine in many ways to my M3. They're the last of the 3ers to have a manual throttle, so they feel alot more responsive than the newer cars (325,330 etc).

Tax is a pain, not quite at M3 levels though. Just make sure the rear subframe isn't hanging off the car!

I'm not getting confuesed. It did have the nikasil issue. I think you're confused! It's not all that different to the one in the E36, it didn't go past 2000 in the E46. Why would they introduce a new engine for a year or so and discontinue it?

kdevitt

Biro wrote: »

I'm not getting confuesed. It did have the nikasil issue. I think you're confused! It's not all that different to the one in the E36, it didn't go past 2000 in the E46. Why would they introduce a new engine for a year or so and discontinue it?

Look, you're wrong - simple as. Its a different engine, phone BMW if you don't want to take my word for it!

Edit - the TU on the end of the engine designation is a good hint!

Ferris

From honestjohn:

More comfortable and refined than E36. 14' 8" long by 5' 8" wide and weighing 1,360kg to 1,500kg. Good body control. 'Cornering Brake Control' makes it very safe. Coupes have 60/40 split folding rear seatbacks as standard. Up to 193 bhp in standard range at 1998 launch, but progressive update programme meant that 328i was replaced by 231 bhp 330i in UK in July 2000. All have steel bore liners eliminating problems of previous Nikasil-lined all-alloy blocks. Same 2.0 litre direct injected diesel as Rover 75, initially with 136 bhp instead of Rover's 116 bhp, later raised to 150bhp (see below). Excellent secondary safety features.

Either way buy the 325i has 189 - 193hp(2000 car) and less tax or the 330 has 230hp and slightly more tax. Also why not get the 330d (184hp to 204 in later models) which was widely described as the best driving e46 bar the m3.

Biro

kdevitt wrote: »

Look, you're wrong - simple as. Its a different engine, phone BMW if you don't want to take my word for it!

Edit - the TU on the end of the engine designation is a good hint!

Honest John thinks I'm not, neither does one of my mates who had an E46 328 with nikasil problems...

kdevitt

Biro wrote: »

Honest John thinks I'm not, neither does one of my mates who had an E46 328 with nikasil problems...

Your friend didn't have an E46 328ci with nikasil issues. The last of the nikasil affected cars rolled out in 1998, before the E46 was released. Either your friend is bull****ting you, or someone bull****ted your friend.

A good list of M52 applications is here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M52

unkel

kdevitt is right. The E46 328 has the M52TUB28 engine, which does not have nikasil liners

Ferris

Biro wrote: »

Honest John thinks I'm not, neither does one of my mates who had an E46 328 with nikasil problems...

Sorry but honestjohn thinks you are wrong:

More comfortable and refined than E36. 14' 8" long by 5' 8" wide and weighing 1,360kg to 1,500kg. Good body control. 'Cornering Brake Control' makes it very safe. Coupes have 60/40 split folding rear seatbacks as standard. Up to 193 bhp in standard range at 1998 launch, but progressive update programme meant that 328i was replaced by 231 bhp 330i in UK in July 2000. All have steel bore liners eliminating problems of previous Nikasil-lined all-alloy blocks. Same 2.0 litre direct injected diesel as Rover 75, initially with 136 bhp instead of Rover's 116 bhp, later raised to 150bhp (see below). Excellent secondary safety features.

Robertr

Augh Snap!!!!!:D:D

NedKelly

Elessar wrote: »

28 MPG?! If you are driving 90% on the motorway in 5th gear maybe! My E46 320 gets 22MPG urban driving, and that's a 2.2 litre.

I have an M3 (3.2 evo) and i get 23- 25mpg driving it in town every day and the odd foot to the floor moment

sogood

Elessar wrote: »

28 MPG?! If you are driving 90% on the motorway in 5th gear maybe! My E46 320 gets 22MPG urban driving, and that's a 2.2 litre.

My 1990 e32 735 returns me between 25 and 28 mpg mixed driving and we're talking about a big heavy car here. I think the weight of your right foot will be more of a deciding factor.

Elessar

NedKelly wrote: »

I have an M3 (3.2 evo) and i get 23- 25mpg driving it in town every day and the odd foot to the floor moment

Did you calculate it properly though? I.e. Depleting the tank, doing the calculations instead of just looking at the OBC? If so you're a lucky SOB

SEPT 23 1989

i thought the only nikasil affected cars at that time were V8 BMW's and JAGS

NedKelly

Elessar wrote: »

Did you calculate it properly though? I.e. Depleting the tank, doing the calculations instead of just looking at the OBC? If so you're a lucky SOB

Yep sure did
waited till there was harrdly anything in it (obc sayin range 2 miles) and put in 45.60 litres

and did 236 miles (236/10) = 23.6mpg
the obd reported 24.1 mpg so it wasnt that much out
i drive sensibility most of the time but do have the odd "moment"
if you cane it , it will go down to 15mpg
but it will happily trundle around and do 24mpg

unkel

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

i thought the only nikasil affected cars at that time were V8 BMW's

The only V8 BMW engine with Nikasil was the M60 ('93-'95) 3.0l and 4.0l engine. Google a bit more!

Voodoomelon

M52 2.8 here and average 22MPG with mostly city driving. Gets up to 36MPG on the motorway at 110kmph. I would expect the E46 to average slightly better given the lighter chassis.
Great engine, smooth as silk and reliable as hell; the sound and running of the engine is more refined than a V8 and would give bucket loads of poke in a 3 series.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Im looking for one of these now, from what I can see you can pick up a '00 for around 4k or just above, theyre not easy to find though and it doesnt make financial sense to import from the UK anymore...

listermint

nm wrote: »

Im looking for one of these now, from what I can see you can pick up a '00 for around 4k or just above, theyre not easy to find though and it doesnt make financial sense to import from the UK anymore...

You just missed this one! Cracking Version

http://www.bmw-driver.net/forum/showthread.php?t=12456

VolvoMan

listermint wrote: »

You just missed this one! Cracking Version

http://www.bmw-driver.net/forum/showthread.php?t=12456

Yes, you're right. That is a stunning example!

I always had a soft spot for the E46 Coupe, particularly before they facelifted it.

JJJJNR

They're really nice cars, if you've got the cash they can be supercharged to 310bhp for about £6k at stage 1. Looovely.

unkel

listermint wrote: »

You just missed this one! Cracking Version

http://www.bmw-driver.net/forum/showthread.php?t=12456

3k for that one is a bargain. I guess there's very few people who want to spend more than 2l motor tax money these days

Matt Simis

Our 530i (M54, next gen engine from the 2.8, same as a e46 330i) gets 27 to over 30mpg, mix of roads. Im not very impressed with its performance, I see people rave about them tho. Its a fast ordinary car I guess.

Fishtits

E39 525i manual, mid to low 30's on average, better on a run, low 20's around town.

(Anyone else find the 6cyl manual a dog around town?, bogging, flatspots etc)

nxbyveromdwjpg

listermint wrote: »

You just missed this one! Cracking Version

http://www.bmw-driver.net/forum/showthread.php?t=12456

Pity, cheers for the link to the forum though.. now bookmarked, and registered.

bmstuff

unkel wrote: »

The only V8 BMW engine with Nikasil was the M60 ('93-'95) 3.0l and 4.0l engine. Google a bit more!

M62 were affected too up to 1997, 3.5l/4.4l, with the exception of some markets (US...)

testicle

I just bought a '99 E39 528iA - I love it. I get about 26-27mpg out of it.

unkel

bmstuff wrote: »

M62 were affected too up to 1997, 3.5l/4.4l, with the exception of some markets (US...)

No the M62 was never affected by Nikasil :rolleyes:

unkel

testicle wrote: »

I just bought a '99 E39 528iA - I love it. I get about 26-27mpg out of it.

Well wear

bmstuff

unkel wrote: »

No the M62 was never affected by Nikasil :rolleyes:

Sorry mate but it most definitely was. This statement you made is only true for US Market and it widely echoed on US forums, so everybody thinks it never was the case, but the reality is that it was. Check the WIKI yourself. There is the official BMW bulletin about that.

unkel

bmstuff wrote: »

Sorry mate but it most definitely was. This statement you made is only true for US Market and it widely echoed on US forums, so everybody thinks it never was the case, but the reality is that it was. Check the WIKI yourself. There is the official BMW bulletin about that.

I'll be damned. Looks like you're right. Never knew that before and I've owned both an M60 and an M62 engined BMW (neither developed nikasil problems). I've never come across a story about a M62 affected car, maybe the English had cleaned up their north sea oil based petrol at that stage?

Here's the wiki on the M62 engine. I'm getting the impression this stuff and the links to the BMW TIS bulletin is added recently...