The most reaible

"Troika" wrote

Definitely not the 92/93 - that's the first two years of the E36, which was notoriously bad for build, electrical and body problems.

FloydR

My '92 320i (2.0l, 24v, 6 cyl) has been fantastic 160,000Miles on the clock original engine, gearbox, clutch. Recently needed new rear shock mounts, no rust worth mentioning. Grips the road, cornering is awesome, pretty slick acceleration when required. Paintwork still looks good

Downside? Hmm less than 20 UK miles to the UK gallon around town, will do around 40 UK miles to the UK gallon at high speed cruising. The drivers seat is starting to look very worn, time for a replacement. Odd electrical quirks also needed a new alternator recently. The handbrake has to be one of the worst known to mankind.

Is the E36 the classic all-round BMW, OH YES.

It's which, not witch.

Late E30s are bullet proof. Early E36s weren't built well inside but are mechanically reliable.

I'm not a fan of the 1.6 and 1.8 M40 8 valve engines, the chatter a lot due to (in my opinion) valve guide wear. The later M43 and the 16 valve engines are fine.

Sixes are OK except for dodgy waterpumps on the 24 valve units (easy to replace).

..o kay...

There must be something wrong with it or you sit in traffic a lot.

I disagree. My ex '91 320i (e36 of course) was bought with 160 k km on clock and sold after one year and almost 200k km, and it will probably remain the best car I ever had when speaking of reliability, price paid and received after one year and running costs overall.

-- It's a good idea to drive a little Japanese/Ford/whatever shopping machine once a year to remind yourself why you're in a BMW for the rest of the year. by John Burns. '98 328i coupe t.

Easily done in London. I've seen under 15 on my 528 auto.

;->

FloydR

On Wed, 17 May 2006 11:01:04 +0100, John Burns waffled on about something:

IIRC didn't the early E36 316's also had cam belts and not chain drive. Not sure about the 318's.

Dodgy.