So what does the panel think then?

I don't really see the point of a I6 when it's as small as the one in a

320, but I do think that I6s have something over an I4 in terms of refinement, noise and the way they drive. Depends what you want it for.

Bah - You're a RWD snob just like everyone else when it suits you.

Yeah, cos in one's stripped out 'track toy', MPG is a major consideration right? Shall we just start referring to you as DervH?

For the track though the thirst is not an issue (or you'd get a caterham / lotus or other lightweight) and the noseweight can be compensated for by suspension tweaks and throttle.

I6 has near perfect balance without counterweights and balance shafts.

The more the merrier, and the higher the fricitonal losses and rotational and inertial masses. Effeciency goes down, but valve area can go up so power output can go up too. Given unlimited budget my E class would have a V12 in the front, given the real world it has a 5 pot diesel.

RWD is not snobbery, it's just plainly superior in every situation other than slippery hills.

Bear in mind that this car started life as a daily driver, where the very efficient TSpark engine was much appreciated.

Now it's just a toy, the fuel economy is a bonus, as it means I can usually get from here to the track, do a full day, and back again without having to top up the fuel.

However, the TSpark is still the better track car, as the V6 is a tad too nose heavy - remember, the 75 is a very well balanced car, the V6 tips the weight distribution towards the front, rather than it being

50/50.

No, it's not.

For 90% of the time, I couldn't care, and barely notice, which end of the car is driven.

RWD snobbery is just yet another form of c*ck-waving, as is the cylinder count.

You got numbers to back that up? I'd expect a standard V6 to give better laptimes than a standard TSpark.. Didn't they do anything clever like move the battery (like MB do) to keep the weight distribution? Also isn't it a transaxle as well?

No. RWD is the choice of not having the steering corrupted by the power. Torque steer is a phenomenon only affecting front drive cars. Traction under power is better in a rear drive car.

Haven't got the figures to hand - they're somehwere in an ancient copy of Autocar & Motor which did a back to back comparison when the revised range was launched.

From what I recall, there is hardly anything in it in terms of lap times

- certainly in the AROC championship, the TSpark cars regularly beat the V6s.

The major engineering change between the 4 pots and the V6 was to relocate the fuel tank into the boot in the V6 - robbing it of around a third of it's already small capacity.

Anyway, it just like my TSpark. There's something very special about the old all-alloy TSparks, as well as them being completely abuse proofed and dirt cheap to maintain. For track use, I'd be wanting to change a V6 cambelt every year, which isn't exactly cheap to do.

Anything which keeps the costs down is a good thing, given the fact that I have a 156 and VFR also fighting for a slice of the same pot of money. (The VFR is due a valve clearance check and new brake fluid next spring..... that'll be nice and cheap, then)

How exactly does this affect me on the M6 in the rush hour?

The 320 is now a 4 cylinder.

The 2.0 six cylinder in my old E28 was wonderfully smooth. Not awfully powerful, but very very smooth and made a great noise.

That's the point :-)

Bloody hell, I thought that was the USP of the 320 - that it had a 6 pot rather than a 4 pot like the competition.

Makes the price tag look even more laughable now - over £22k for a poverty spec. 4-pot, ffs.

I'm going to be an anorak here.

Torque steer is still possible with a RWD car.

What ? I imagine you saying...

It's true.

OK, it may not be the front wheels being corrupted, but dodgy geometry on the back end can lead to unwelcome nastiness happening around the rear wheel geometry. It's not the torque steer everyone is usually thinking of, but it's still torque steer. Remember, I had a GTM... ;-)

Stop being a power ranger and save the money!

It's still the cheapest and most fun way to do 150mph and 0-60 in under

3 seconds..... I'm not quite ready to give that up.

Spent a lot of time at 150 this year have you? (c:

What was the fuel economy like?

Ahh yes indeed it does

320iES, 0-62 8.2, 142 max, 146g/km, 46.3mpg combined, 170bhp, 16% BIK tax, £22685, optional auto.

159 2.2JTS Turismo, 0-62 8.8, 138 max, 221gm/km, 30.1mpg combined, 185bhp,

31%BIK tax £21250, no auto.

Shall we even mention residuals? And what does the 159 do with 10% more power to get such crap numbers?

It's that s**te GM-derived engine, innit.

159s look the business, but I don't think I'd have one - they somehow seem a step backwards compared to the 156, and I've already had a rant about the unrealistic pricing months ago.

It's coming to something when the pick of the range is a diesel.

That depends very much, that does.

Depends very much on the commute, I get about 10k out of a rear tyre that costs me 100 quid...

It's 6k for an oil change and 12k for the big service on pretty much any BMW since the early 90s. 12k service on the K1100LT is around

275-300 quid at my local independent BMW specialist, no idea how much the 1150RT I just bought will cost, but cheaper it's not going to be. Those are pretty much regular car prices IME...

That is of course if you pay attention the maintenance schedule as opposed to just sticking in fresh oil & filter.

Well yes, but with a Scottoiler you'll get quite a lot of miles out of a chain as well.