In reply to jgrewe :
No, those are old and outdated failures. This model will include the latest in modern failures, completely different from those that came before (except in terms of cost to repair and catastrophic outcomes if ignored).
In reply to jgrewe :
No, those are old and outdated failures. This model will include the latest in modern failures, completely different from those that came before (except in terms of cost to repair and catastrophic outcomes if ignored).
jgrewe said:Does it have a dipstick?
Will it drip oil on its serpentine belt out of the oil filter housing?
Will it force feed itself that belt through the front seal if it fails?
To be fair, you could ask those same questions of a lot of modern cars. Late model Volvos come to mind
600 lbs. heavier than my Z4m seems a large penalty for having two seats that will probably seldom be used. I'd love that engine in my car, though (you can buy a supercharger kit that puts the original S54 engine up there, but supercharging an engine with 11.5 compression just seems somehow unnatural to me....)
In reply to CAinCA :
That's what I took away from the article, as well. Why do modern cars weigh so much?
She is definitely chunky...
3800lbs????? Eff that.
Cars have become monstrous pigs in the pursuit of safety and technological bells and whistles.
In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :
The excessive weight and the aesthetics to start...
jgrewe said:Does it have a dipstick?
Will it drip oil on its serpentine belt out of the oil filter housing?
Will it force feed itself that belt through the front seal if it fails?
I haven't heard anything about the B/S58 engines having the same failures as the N54/55 engines.
What a pig. My wife's Forester is 400 lbs less.
At 2500# and change I'll keep throwing my Mini Cooper around and loving life; good luck if you throw that sow around and it gets away from you 
Back in the day - way back- my Dad had a '49 4-door Buick Roadmaster that was huge, even then.
IIRC it was 'only' 4,000 lbs - 2 tons.
Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) said:Same, and speaking of us... uh.. larger folks. If these are the only seats available:
...then that's gonna be a "no" from me, dawg.
Crap! Those look, uh, comfortable. That nutbuster wedgy thingy will be real comfortable on long trips. 
Nowhere to go but up considering how butt ugly the new m3/m4 is so I guess they got that going for them! I think this is aimed more at the techie parking in garages in NYC and not the GRM tracking with a group of Porsches like BMW's used to be about.
stonebreaker said:In reply to CAinCA :
That's what I took away from the article, as well. Why do modern cars weigh so much?
I don't think you keep 4-500hp cool, contained, and "reliable" in an oem context while keeping the weight down.
But if it didn't weigh 4000lbs you wouldn't need that much oomph to be quick so... meh.
CAinCA said:Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) said:Same, and speaking of us... uh.. larger folks. If these are the only seats available:
...then that's gonna be a "no" from me, dawg.
Crap! Those look, uh, comfortable. That nutbuster wedgy thingy will be real comfortable on long trips.
Those seats are part of the carbon package. The nut-tuck is part of the ingress/egress procedure.
I miss tire sidewalls. I also miss square setups that you can rotate easily.
I guess if you're dropping this sort of coin on a car, you're probably ok dropping a bit more to have somebody else mess with your tires.
Cactus said:I miss tire sidewalls. I also miss square setups that you can rotate easily.
I guess if you're dropping this sort of coin on a car, you're probably ok dropping a bit more to have somebody else mess with your tires.
M cars haven't had square setups since the '95 M3, IIRC
z31maniac said:Cactus said:I miss tire sidewalls. I also miss square setups that you can rotate easily.
I guess if you're dropping this sort of coin on a car, you're probably ok dropping a bit more to have somebody else mess with your tires.
M cars haven't had square setups since the '95 M3, IIRC
'96 
Slippery said:z31maniac said:Cactus said:I miss tire sidewalls. I also miss square setups that you can rotate easily.
I guess if you're dropping this sort of coin on a car, you're probably ok dropping a bit more to have somebody else mess with your tires.
M cars haven't had square setups since the '95 M3, IIRC
'96
I'll bet you a nice steak dinner. 
'95 was 235/40/17 at all 4 corners.
'96 (when it changed to the S52 and OBD-II) it went to 225/45/17, and 245/40/17 F/R.
Oddly, to a lot of us, the 90s were when everything went to E36 M3.
Pun intended.
The going price for this porker is around $30/lb, and thats a bit rich for my blood. Im thinking the cost of ownership will be frightfully high...but I bet its fun to drive. Sorta like the really hot chick, lotta fun to ride, but not as much fun to live with.
z31maniac said:jgrewe said:Does it have a dipstick?
Will it drip oil on its serpentine belt out of the oil filter housing?
Will it force feed itself that belt through the front seal if it fails?
I haven't heard anything about the B/S58 engines having the same failures as the N54/55 engines.
I can guarantee they solved the oil filter housing/belt/front seal issue, at least on the B58.
Oil filter housing and I believe the timing chain are now on the back of the engine.
CAinCA said:Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) said:Same, and speaking of us... uh.. larger folks. If these are the only seats available:
...then that's gonna be a "no" from me, dawg.
Crap! Those look, uh, comfortable. That nutbuster wedgy thingy will be real comfortable on long trips.
that's a new BMW safety device - its designed keep you alert when behind the wheel...those Germans are so clever lol.
In reply to livinon2wheels :
Those are the optional M Carbon bucket seats.
Just seeing this somehow. THIRTY EIGHT HUNDRED POUNDS?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
An M2 weighs that much?! I feel physically ill.
You'll need to log in to post.
