B M W Dealers Lead The Way With Crashing Prices

[Limpet]

The BMW 120i has a two ltr petrol 4 cyl engine. It is a 3 or 5 door hatchback like a honda civic. It develops 170 bhp and 210 Nm of torque delivering a 0-62 time of 7.7 seconds and top speed 134mph. It weighs 1365kgs and returns 44.1mpg on the combined cycle.

Despite weighing less at 1248kg and having a smaller 1.8ltr engine delivering only 138bhp and 174Nm of torque the Civic 1.8i burns more fuel than the BMW 120i at 42.8mpg Combined cycle. Its performance is also worse despite being lighter and more thirst, it does 0-60 in 8.9secs and is all out of ideas at 127mph.

Whose the engineering Daddy now?

Honda have, as I said, been resting on their laurels for quite some time.

This thread is turning into internet "Top Trumps" which, as far as I can remember, is a game for annoying twelve year olds.

That`s the twelve year olds that are annoying , not the act of annoying twelve year olds......errr...if you get my drift.

[Peter Skellan]

Well, its just facts against belief. Belief that high peak bhp/low torque engines and no traction control is somehow better than balanced bhp/torque and advanced stability control. Of course people can hold irrational beliefs. But the facts speak for themselves.

Hondas are OK and as I said, I owned an S2000. Its an interesting car from an engineering point of view for sure but as a sports car its prediliction for snap oversteer and slightly numb steering meant that I changed for a boxster and later a Z4. Each has their strengths and weaknesses.

BMW

[Robot Piston]

BMW's have always been poor value for money. They are a status symbol first and a car second. I would guess that 25% of the price is for the badge. They are well made, don't get me wrong, but that if they weren't, then the badge would be 50% of the value...

[Joey Buttafueco Jr]

BMW's have always been poor value for money. They are a status symbol first and a car second. I would guess that 25% of the price is for the badge. They are well made, don't get me wrong, but that if they weren't, then the badge would be 50% of the value...

Please define poor value for money. I was in the market for a reasonably sporty small estate. What were the alternatives (I'm deliberately inviting suggestions)

[Legal_Landlord]

Please define poor value for money. I was in the market for a reasonably sporty small estate. What were the alternatives (I'm deliberately inviting suggestions)

Is Honda better than BMW or is it the other way round ? Depends what you want from a car.

Honda cars have never seemed that interesting to me, so says a man who bought 8 Vauxhalls over 12 years !

I eventually saw the light and bought a BMW this year.

Is it better than a Honda ?- I dont know as I have never sat in one .

Is it better than other cars ? - I dont know as I didnt try every car.

Is it good value ? - I don't care and depends what you mean by value.

I wanted a BMW.

I like it and that's all that matters.

As ever , you pays your money and you make your choice .

DYOR

[Peter Skellan]

BMW's have always been poor value for money. They are a status symbol first and a car second. I would guess that 25% of the price is for the badge. They are well made, don't get me wrong, but that if they weren't, then the badge would be 50% of the value..

Poor value for money? By far the biggest cost is depreciation and BMW's hold their money. Autotrader is full of 5 year old 3 series that still command £7,000. The equivalent Ford or Vauxhall is down to £3,000. Their list premiums are maintained and its one of the main reason Fleet Managers buy so many small BMW/Merc/Audi saloons - their lower depreciation justifies the higher unit price.

If you want cheap motoring by a BMW Mini diesel - 70% retained value at 3 years and >60mpg and all inclusive servicing for 5 years/60,000 miles for £500.

The 3 series outsells the Mondeo and Vectra so there's no cachet to a propellor badge in itself these days - have you ever actually heard anyone boast they have a BMW? I haven't.

They are very much a car first as defined as a machine for driving. The finest engines, rear wheel drive, well weighted steering and a delicate chassis balance not heavily disposed to understeer all make them very much more drivers cars than most rivals.

[Crashman Begins]

[

The BMW 120i has a two ltr petrol 4 cyl engine. It is a 3 or 5 door hatchback like a honda civic. It develops 170 bhp and 210 Nm of torque delivering a 0-62 time of 7.7 seconds and top speed 134mph. It weighs 1365kgs and returns 44.1mpg on the combined cycle.

Despite weighing less at 1248kg and having a smaller 1.8ltr engine delivering only 138bhp and 174Nm of torque the Civic 1.8i burns more fuel than the BMW 120i at 42.8mpg Combined cycle. Its performance is also worse despite being lighter and more thirst, it does 0-60 in 8.9secs and is all out of ideas at 127mph.

Whose the engineering Daddy now?

Honda have, as I said, been resting on their laurels for quite some time.

2007 BMW 120i / 2.0 1995 cc 168 bhp / weight 1365kgs / Top speed 138 mph

1992 Honda civic vti / 1.6 1595 cc 160 bhp / weight 1260kgs / Top speed 130 mph

Over a decade older ... a way smaller engine & still kicking ass (From personal experience).... now who's the engineering daddy ?

Please dont make me look at bigger VTEC engines

Edited November 13, 2008 by Crashman Begins

[Joey Buttafueco Jr]

[

2007 BMW 120i / 2.0 1995 cc 168 bhp / weight 1365kgs / Top speed 138 mph

1997 Honda civic vti / 1.6 1595 cc 160 bhp / weight 1260kgs / Top speed 130 mph

A decade older ... a way smaller engine & still kicking ass (From personal experience).... now who's the engineering daddy ?

As Peter pointed out, BMW are able to get high specific outputs with superior efficiency.

[Crashman Begins]

As Peter pointed out, BMW are able to get high specific outputs with superior efficiency.

VTEC was very clever, 20 years ago.

Sorry gotta defend "the power of dreams"

[Joey Buttafueco Jr]

Sorry gotta defend "the power of dreams"

If you can convince me that the current Civic Type R has torsion beam at the rear for as it offers the best compromise of rider and handling I will join you

[allfiredup]

You really have to have drove a BMW to understand them.

I have a 330 Ci and its amazing, it drives like a spaceship. Worth every penny.

[Privateer]

You really have to have drove a BMW to understand them.

I have a 330 Ci and its amazing, it drives like a spaceship. Worth every penny.

What, it takes several hundred miles to get up to its top speed, but can turn 180 in its own length?

[allfiredup]

What, it takes several hundred miles to get up to its top speed, but can turn 180 in its own length?

Almost. Admitidly it wont do 17,000 mph but yeah it takes a few seconds to reach over 100mph and it has got the best turning circle of any car I've drove.

Edited November 13, 2008 by allfiredup

[meow]

This thread is turning into internet "Top Trumps" which, as far as I can remember, is a game for annoying twelve year olds.

That`s the twelve year olds that are annoying , not the act of annoying twelve year olds......errr...if you get my drift.

No! I think this is as pathetic as watching 8 year olds argue, there beat that Limpet NER NER NER NER NER!!!

Anyway, my dad's car is better than yours.

Edited November 13, 2008 by meow

[Crashman Begins]

No! I think this is as pathetic as watching 8 year olds argue, there beat that Limpet NER NER NER NER NER!!!

Anyway, my dad's car is better than yours.

Nothing like a bit of banter, & why not, you might learn something.

Plus it takes your mind of the doom & gloom.

Drive what ever makes you happy

[meow]

Drive what ever makes you happy you can still afford come 2010

fixed

[MarkyB]

Oh God, he's another one of them. Because it's got a turbo, it's the fastest thing on the road and he drives it supereconomically and superquickly.

A current E90 will muller it both in a drag race and especially across country - you'll put that down to the driver, I suspect that it's much more to do with the fact you are simply driving harder than he is.

Why would the Seat be slower, same weight, same power and torque.

If you take a petrol Cupra, if VW won't let them be quicker, why does the current petrol one have 240hp and the Golf 200, or the old Cupra R had 225 and the Golf 150 (or 180 at the end).

I agree with everything pretty much but MULLER is a strong word... lol I had a cupra, and the Cupra IMO handled better than the golf as it was firmer, and seemed to be better balanced! I would say the BMW would be faster, but certainly wouldn't muller it cross country! Defo on the motorway thou, as I know the 330d was restricted to 155 and the 150PD struggled with 135

There was no power diff between the golf and the leon, FACT... if anything, the leon with better profille 17" wheels/tyres would have more grip (lower profile) and better stability!

[MarkyB]

Honda win on longevity and lightness. Hondas are just so sodding reliable.

BMWs are much much better performers for the normal man in the street - whether in petrol or diesel - torque is important to people who don't like driving, but like to go places.

BUT they have a reliability problem - there are niggles about a lot of BMW's engines - failing water pumps (because they are cheap), VANOS failures and lots and lots and lots on the M Cars, failing turbos on the diesels, knackered catalysts etc. and with lots more comfort electrics, they suffer from gremlins are lot more than most. Mercedes are even worse (or were, till very recently), Audi are appalling, as are VW - where BMW saves itself if that they are excellent at fixing things that go wrong, other German prestige and semi prestige makers are bloody terrible. VW used to be discount but quality German engineering - the older cars did run for ever - the newer cars have had issues, again mostly caused by cost saving - e.g. the coil pack debacle was down to them screwing suppliers too hard - a lot of current VW cars have significant issues - Polo and Lupo gearboxes, Passats 2.0tdis sat at dealers with serious engine failure, the Sharan was always crap, the Golf V is better than the Golf IV though for reliability, appalling climate control unit reliability, failing suspension at tiny mileages on the old Passat etc.

Ur right about honda reliablility...

just to note...the guy who spoke about a BMW mullering any hot hatch cross country is on another planet, the handling characteristics are very different, I don't think ive ever driven a car that could handle a corner like the type R GT... and ive driven all the BMW's mentioned above including a 4.0 V8 BMW. FAST yes... but out handle a new FN2 Hot hatch type R... not on your life.... lol

This car is like a go kart, and the people who talk about Torque, ask yourself how a 200n/a engined car can keep up and normally beat round a track a 225 bhp turbo ST focus with twice the torque,... the answer is "the package"... anyone will tell you going round a track is not all about power... its about handling ... braking... turn in... etc (and of course the driver, but we are talking L4L here ie the STIG).

problem with all this comparison, if your comparing a BMW330d ie, over 30k of car... with say a seat leon/ golf... say 15k - 18k new price. its almost half the value. we all appreciate the VAG PD diesel engines are great, anyone who doesn't is a bit of a fool.

Im sure is VW developed a golf for 30k deisel.... it would give a 330d a run for the money, in fact it would probably muller it, anecdotally, i had a leon 150pd tdi cupra, and I couldn't keep up with a 330d (almost but there was a difference), but he certainly never mullered me, not at all. But as a matter of FACT it was faster, no doubt.

[MarkyB]

The BMW 120i has a two ltr petrol 4 cyl engine. It is a 3 or 5 door hatchback like a honda civic. It develops 170 bhp and 210 Nm of torque delivering a 0-62 time of 7.7 seconds and top speed 134mph. It weighs 1365kgs and returns 44.1mpg on the combined cycle.

Despite weighing less at 1248kg and having a smaller 1.8ltr engine delivering only 138bhp and 174Nm of torque the Civic 1.8i burns more fuel than the BMW 120i at 42.8mpg Combined cycle. Its performance is also worse despite being lighter and more thirst, it does 0-60 in 8.9secs and is all out of ideas at 127mph.

Whose the engineering Daddy now?

Honda have, as I said, been resting on their laurels for quite some time.

Hey lets not get onto combined cycles here matey...

the MINI cooper diesel ie BMW is quoted as 72mpg... on a car MPG marathon 2007 it acheived exactly that 72mpg, with skilled drivers trying to better it, other cars with claimed MPG of 55mpg got 72mpg... significant improvement. Agreed your using quoted figures... but im just saying they are B*****ks

BMW are in the government officials departments pockets... simple, as their quoted figures are sometimes outragous, and it makes a huge diff on company car tax... like the 520d... with 177bhp getting on 134 CO2... shocking... sorry but they are in bed with authorities. Same accross the range... the Combined is almost the most someone has ever achieved, rather than realistic.

[MarkyB]

Poor value for money? By far the biggest cost is depreciation and BMW's hold their money. Autotrader is full of 5 year old 3 series that still command £7,000. The equivalent Ford or Vauxhall is down to £3,000. Their list premiums are maintained and its one of the main reason Fleet Managers buy so many small BMW/Merc/Audi saloons - their lower depreciation justifies the higher unit price.

If you want cheap motoring by a BMW Mini diesel - 70% retained value at 3 years and >60mpg and all inclusive servicing for 5 years/60,000 miles for £500.

The 3 series outsells the Mondeo and Vectra so there's no cachet to a propellor badge in itself these days - have you ever actually heard anyone boast they have a BMW? I haven't.

They are very much a car first as defined as a machine for driving. The finest engines, rear wheel drive, well weighted steering and a delicate chassis balance not heavily disposed to understeer all make them very much more drivers cars than most rivals.

OMG the ignorance in this thread and snobbery is shocking guys,

Ive just brought my Honda TYPE R... its a GT model... 19k list price... standard, as it needed no other equipment!

please look it up and price up a comparably spec'd up hot BMW 130M tech... with the same equipment... you will then see how they are so much more money after 3 or 5 years... THEY COST TWICE AS MUCH IN THE FIRST PLACE, then you have to SPEC them up too ... lol

Residuals on Honda's are one of the best in the industry... but it doesn't bother me in the slightest anyway.

As I said look up the comparisons, they include the BMW in the Topgear post from earlier, and the top car... HONDA CIVIC Type R GT, i made my choice, cause its what I wanted, no doubt the BMW is a nicer car, but for twice the money, shocking fuel economy, and NO CHARACTER... no thanks!

M3 ... yes please... but for £50k... erm... NO

[MarkyB]

If you can convince me that the current Civic Type R has torsion beam at the rear for as it offers the best compromise of rider and handling I will join you

Oh dear jumping on the clarkson bandwagon,... assume ur going to be slating the 306 GTI-6 too and the XSARA VTS... both torsion Beams yet, was top of their class.

I know the golf has the independant suspension at the back, and more power than the CIVIC type R... but as per top gear... and the STIG... type R was faster round its track ...

In terms of ride it goes to the golf (but please drive one, it feels as stodgy as a sunday roast left in its gravy for 2 hours before serving), handling it goes to the Type R...

DOES ANYONE BUY A HOT HATCH FOR THE RIDE QUALITY, NO ITS HANDLING and FUN?

and the ones that don't... probably do the school run and have never been over 4k lol, and buy it cause it says GTI on the front/back... hmmmm

[MarkyB]

No! I think this is as pathetic as watching 8 year olds argue, there beat that Limpet NER NER NER NER NER!!!

Anyway, my dad's car is better than yours.

its funny... join in...

[Joey Buttafueco Jr]

Oh dear jumping on the clarkson bandwagon,... assume ur going to be slating the 306 GTI-6 too and the XSARA VTS... both torsion Beams yet, was top of their class.

I know the golf has the independant suspension at the back, and more power than the CIVIC type R... but as per top gear... and the STIG... type R was faster round its track ...

In terms of ride it goes to the golf (but please drive one, it feels as stodgy as a sunday roast left in its gravy for 2 hours before serving), handling it goes to the Type R...

DOES ANYONE BUY A HOT HATCH FOR THE RIDE QUALITY, NO ITS HANDLING and FUN?

and the ones that don't... probably do the school run and have never been over 4k lol, and buy it cause it says GTI on the front/back... hmmmm

"Oh dear jumping on the clarkson bandwagon,... assume ur going to be slating the 306 GTI-6 too and the XSARA VTS... both torsion Beams yet, was top of their class."

The Xsara was never at the top of its class. They never started off with independent and went to torsion bar - I'm asking why Honda did

"DOES ANYONE BUY A HOT HATCH FOR THE RIDE QUALITY, NO ITS HANDLING and FUN?"

I'm not sure why good ride quality and handling are mutually exclusive. My 306 Rallye had a very good ride

[impatient_mug]

Oh dear jumping on the clarkson bandwagon,... assume ur going to be slating the 306 GTI-6 too and the XSARA VTS... both torsion Beams yet, was top of their class.

I know the golf has the independant suspension at the back, and more power than the CIVIC type R... but as per top gear... and the STIG... type R was faster round its track ...

In terms of ride it goes to the golf (but please drive one, it feels as stodgy as a sunday roast left in its gravy for 2 hours before serving), handling it goes to the Type R...

DOES ANYONE BUY A HOT HATCH FOR THE RIDE QUALITY, NO ITS HANDLING and FUN?

and the ones that don't... probably do the school run and have never been over 4k lol, and buy it cause it says GTI on the front/back... hmmmm

This may not be a fair comment on the new one, as the last Type R I drove was the previous model - it was a 2004 one I think. Had it for a weekend. When you wanted to rag it, it was great fun, and the handling was excellent. Ride was firm but an acceptable trade-off for the handling. Performance was nuts once you got above 5.5k.

Here's the problem tho. 99.9% of the time I'm driving in normal UK traffic conditions. In normal rev ranges - 2 - 5, the Civic had no pull what so ever. I can only assume the torque/power curves looks something like this: ___________|\__

In the end I went for the 330 as although it was slower overall, and about £2k more expensive, it puts down it's power at far more sensible engine speeds, and is far smoother, cruises at speeds that would get you an instant ban quietly, and can still hold it's own against the majority of hot hatches.

Edited November 19, 2008 by impatient_mug

[Himura]

[

2007 BMW 120i / 2.0 1995 cc 168 bhp / weight 1365kgs / Top speed 138 mph

1992 Honda civic vti / 1.6 1595 cc 160 bhp / weight 1260kgs / Top speed 130 mph

Over a decade older ... a way smaller engine & still kicking ass (From personal experience).... now who's the engineering daddy ?

Please dont make me look at bigger VTEC engines

Apples and pears

The VTi has always been a hot hatch and therefore has a hot hatch tuned engine. The 120i is just a runabout.

Don't get me wrong, Honda used to be great at innovation and did produce some very good engines but as someone here has said they have been left behind by a few manufacturers now, BMW being one.

I had a Honda Civic VTi with the B18C engine and it was great when revved, but Honda have always had a problem ramping up their engine sizes while making VTEC work. BMW M power engines are simply in another league.

Want to compare bigger engines? How about Honda 3.2 VTEC (280BHP) vs BMW 3.2 (321/338 BHP)

H