Any chance of seeing the 330xi wagon in the USA?

I don't know, but I agree with you, the 330 in a wagon with AWD should be a popular item. I know I like the 3 Series wagon, but I don't know which motor it comes with.

Strange, the heavier wagon body only comes with the smaller engine here. If I want performance, handliong AND cargo capacity, It seems that I'm out of luck with BMW if I live in the US. Has anyone heard if this model will become available in the US for 06?

(No SUV's please, I don't like driving inverted.)

-- Email reply: please remove one letter from each side of "@" Spammers are VERMIN. Please kill them all.

Jeff Strickland wrote: for 06?

If you're driving an SUV inverted you're not doing it right :-)

Jeff didn't write that, Doug did. Jeff just top-posted and didn't indent the text he quoted so you couldn't easily tell who wrote what!

The difference between the 325 and 330 motors is pretty minimal. The new 325 motor makes the same power as the E46's 330. If you really wanted, you could graft the induction system and engine computer from the 330 to a 325 - the blocks are the same - and build your own 330 wagon.

I'm waiting until spring when the E91 will be available in a rear-wheel drive version. That looks like the best mix of performance, handling, and capacity to me. Pity the interior looks like crap.

To be fair, yes I did top post, but I left several blank lines between my post and the one I replied to, and also inserted the > character into the post I replied to. It should have been pretty easy to discern who wrote what.

E90 325: 215 bhp, 185 lb-ft torque E46 330: 225 bhp, 214 lb-ft torque

Tom

Your e-mail client should insert the appropriate character before each line as shown above. Some people use different characters, but generally the 'greater than' character is used. You're right, it should be been pretty easy to discern who wrote what, but apparently wasn't. More of a reflection on Jim than you I suppose.

Better to bottom-post and leave a single blank line after the quoted post IMO. Anyway, I shouldn't be so picky. It's Friday! Yay!

My news reader does insert the >. Well, it inserts the > in posts that I can see, I don't know what it does to posts that I can't see -- which would include posts where the newsreader might strip them out, why it would strip them out is beyond me.

The 330 Wagon would rock, and it NEEDS the bigger motor.

Frankly, the Marketing Guys broke a gear or slipped a sprocket, or something, if they decided the customers would not want the wagon fitted with the 330 motor. I see the wagon as a top-of-the-line car, not a base model. The default offering should be the top of the line level, and if consumers want to special order a base model, then fine -- or, "too bad, so sad, wouldn't want to be you." That is, the base model should be something the customer has to request, and then be turned down because the factory doesn't feel like building one.

"J Strickland" wrote

Might be some interaction with HTML - I know that OE doesn't handle ">" in HTML very well... People posting here in HTML should be shot.

Floyd

I wonder, also, why the wagon is only available with awd. Weight penalty vs. the 325i sedan is nearly 500 lbs.

Tom

Could be that a wagon is seen as an alternative to an SUV. One of the selling points of most SUVs is the AWD capability. An AWD BMW wagon provides the benefits of a car and an SUV, wihout the disadvantages of an SUV such as ride height.

I think Neil is on to something. If the wagon had AWD, that would position it against the X5 and the X3 -- probably the X3 to a greater extent.

The wagon will be available in RWD in the spring. I comes out this month in AWD - presumably for the New England market - and in RWD in the spring. (This is according to the July BMW dealer bulletin).

"Tom K." wrote

Less than half that is the AWD, IIRC.

Floyd

Hi Group....

It still amazes me (amuses me ?) why more of you guys stateside don't look at more new technology diesel powered cars...

Firstly, I was/am a "Petrol head", and had a succession of 200 to 250 bhp petrol cars - would have liked more but that was all funds allowed...... then, here in the UK company car tax was changed and this was the prompt I needed to buy (privately) a new 530D BMW - nowadays here this is a 217bhp car and the torque is 370 ft lbs - many people don't admit to it but they spend some £400 ($700 odd) and chip it up to some 250/270 bhp and around 430 ft lbs torque. These figures are "above average" for a UK car ! - on mine, fuel consumption was approx 40 mpg overall which would be about (32/33 mp US g ?) and on a highway run it gave me consistently top 40s and best was 52 mpg (50 mpg is approx ? 42 mpUSg ?) and still a bundle of reserve power under the bonnet / hood ! (similar powered petrol cars are about 30 mpg at most) - and these diesel cars are so much more driveable, delivering GOBS of power at lower revs, where you spend much of your time - you can't all be red-lining it all the time surely ? and the engine sounds so much less stressed....

Top speed I managed in my lesser powered one was an easy and comfortable 135 mph (GPS speed) and it was still pulling strong, but I ran out of bottle as that is definitely a ban in this country...... I am sure I won't buy a petrol car again

What, with fuel prices there reaching the dizzy heights of, what, some $3-50 per gallon ? don't forget we are now well over £1 a LITRE in many places, which is around DOUBLE your prices......

Are you guys still not interested in diesel ? Does it have connotations of agricultural vehicles / trucks still, or is it not the thing to travel in to a party/wedding or something ? There must be a reason - I would really genuinely like to know....

Nick

Southern UK

My guess why we aren't interested in them is because they do not import them here. Perhaps because we don't have the same quality of diesel fuel in the distribution networks. But that is a chicken and egg problem. If we had the diesel cars, we'd soon have the fuel, and vice versa.

"Nick" wrote

The only diesel cars (not trucks) available in the US are the MB E320CDI, and the Golf/Jetta/Passat TDI. Those are the most advanced available, *BUT* they *DO NOT* meet California and other states' standards (mostly for NOx emissions.) Nor will they meet emissions standards for particulates and NOx that will come on line in 2006/2007 (when low-sulfur fuel similar to that mandated currently in EU becomes mandatory.)

You guys like to swim in pollution that causes acid rain and cancer; we don't. Your emissions regs are now, and have been, 10-15 years behind ours.

That's one of the major reasons. Another is due to horrid experiences with diesel engines (BMW 524TD, GM's 6.7L , etc.) The other reason is pure economics: the additional cost of a diesel engine does not get recovered in operating efficiencies, even over 10 years. EU used to tax diesel less than gas (petrol) to make it work - now it's mostly just pure cost. Diesel in the US has always cost the same as gas (it used to be a few pennies less than regular, how it's about 10 cents above premium). I recently looked at the numbers for the Golf and E320CDI - it took 7 years to break even. You've got to remember that the price of fuel directly affects the economics - in the UK or EU the break-even would be in around 3 years. People keeping cars an average of 4-5 years here in the US would never save money.

FloydR

"fbloogyudsr" wrote in

I forgot to mention that BMW has been reported to say that they will import diesels to the US starting in 2007. They have a lot of engineering and work to do to get the particulate filters and catalytic converters to last the mandated mileage (80K-100K miles IIRC). As do the other manufacturers - including MB and VW.

Floyd