Hi,
I am getting a bit fed up with 318's having a 2.0l engine, C180's and C200's both being 1.8s, Saab 93 1.8t and 2.0t both being 2.0l.
BMW 316's have been 1.6, 1.9 and 1.8 in that order!, 320's have been 2.0 then 2.2 if petrol though still 2.0 if diesel!
Now take the 5 Series 6 cyl models only, we have has the 520 2.0/150bhp and the 525 2.5/192, then we had the 523 2.5/170 and 528 2.8/193, then we had the 520 2.2/170, the 525 2.5/195 and the 530 3.0/231. Now we have 523 2.5/170 again!, 525 2.5/195 etc etc.
All very confusing.
Regards.
|
|
A trade mark agent will explain why, muttering things like "brand identity", "established goodwill" and so on.
|
... And how to recognise whether that debadged 3-series is all flash and no go:
1 exhaust exit = 4 cylinders = up to about 150 BHP (less if its a 1.8!)
2 exhaust exits = 6 cylinders = Likely a 330d (diesel) or 330 petrol. 200-ish BHP.
4 exhaust exits = M3 = 340 BHP.
|
Are there any "no model inscription" M3s?
Would there be any point, given the plethora of other cues?!
|
Hi, My point was not to do with de-badging, more why not call all 2.5 litre 5 series "525", perhaps "525" and "525s" for the more powerful one. Likewise MB's and Saabs.
Regards.
|
Sorry cheddar, I was replying to Marlot's point.
I think BMW et al are aware that the 316 and the 325, for example, have a long history as an identifiable model in the 3 series range. People walk in, as I did once, muttering that they have had a 3xx, liked it, and want another one. If they are then told that it isn't available then the dealer has a problem; do you make them feel they are going down, or do you make them feel that they have to pay for a higher model?
So the 316/318 designations will stay for a while, I suspect. Yet BMW do not want their engineers to be limited by their trade mark decisions, so the 2 litre engine that is tuned to give performance appropriate to the model called the 316 will be fitted, even if it has a 'spare' 0.4 litres.
It's interesting that the current range includes 316, 318, 320 & 325 - all of which are the longstanding classic numbers. I think only the 325 and 330 are "correct" at present.
If its any consolation, they've been at it for years. My 1998R 323 had a 2.5 litre engine.
|
I think only the 325 and 330 are "correct" at present.
I think that the 120/320d is also correct as is the 525d. Not sure if the 118d is a 1.8 or 1.9
|
|
...also I think that possibly the 318 is called that because the 320 always used to have a 2 ltr straight 6 and they might not wanted to have confused issues with a 4cyl engine.
|
|
|
|
The 118d is the same engine as the 120d but with a lower output!
|
|
|
|
Hi Patently,
All good points.
It's interesting that the current range includes 316, 318, 320 & >> 325 - all of which are the longstanding classic numbers. >> I think only the 325 and 330 are "correct" at present.
Also the 318 petrol and 320 diesel, though the 318 diesel is 2.0 and the 320 petrol 2.2!
If its any consolation, they've been at it for years. My 1998R 323 had a 2.5 litre engine.
I think it was the 1996 on 323 / 523 that started the trend. About the same time the 540, 640 and 740 were upgraded to 4.4l.
Regards.
|
.started the trend. About the same time the 540, 640 and 740 were upgraded to 4.4l.
Sorry 840, not 640.
|
|
|
|
Response to Patently;
I don't think so. I think it has long been understood that a 318 is a 316 with a bigger engine etc. etc. I therefore think that anybody who walked and said "I used to have a 316...." and was greeted with "ah, but its been replaced with a 318....." would understand exactly what was going on. And probably think that they were getting a better car as well.
The mistake was pretending that the Gold, sorry I mean Compact was actually a 3 series. That started the confusion.
|
a 318 is a 316 with a bigger engine etc. etc
Which it isn't, now! Both are 2.0l, IIRC.
I was thinking of people asking for a 323, say, and being told (as I was) that the 323 is no more but they can offer a 320 or a 325. The 320 feels like a step down* although the then 320 had a 2.2 with the same power as the old 323 that had a 2.5. Meanwhile, the higher spec 325 is more expensive than the old 323 and feels a bit like switch selling.
------------------------
* Remember, this is BMW driverland, where image is nothing and value for money everything ... or something ... ;-)
|
I'll never forget what Rover did when revising their model range.
The 200 series (not the very early one but the one that came in around 1991 and lasted to 1997 or so) were a range of competent family hatchbacks.
So when the new 200 series came out, one expected a similar sized car didn't they?
Erm, well they got something a little bigger than a Metro!
IT would have been very funny had it not caught out several colleagues of mine who had a favorable leasing scheme as a perk. The cars were changed every 9 months or so so as not to affect resale value, so they had to specify the car they were having in 9 months time when they took their next car. The new "200" was offered as an option to them and many who were taking delivery of the outgoing 200 assumed they were safe to have the new one. IIRC the dealer didn't know exactly what to expect with the new 200, so was in fact saying to the customer "Well we expect it to be the same size".
What a complete mess!
H
|
The body that became the 200 was originally supposed to be a replacement for the 100 (metro). Late in the models gestation, they decided to make it the 200 replacement and simply fitted the area forward of the bulkhead from the 1989-1996 200 so the bigger engines would fit!
Quite why it couldn't have been the 100, and make the 1995 400 hatch a 200 is beyond me!
Just like the 1992 (ish) Seat Ibiza had most of the 1994 Polo floor-pan, except in front of the bulkhead where it was pure Mk3 Golf so the 2.0 petrol motor would fit in!
|
|
|
|
|
