Hmmmm?

"Dan Drake" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:55:20 -0600, "Ramone Cila" >
> wrote:
>
> >> All options specify a space saver
> >> spare,
> >
> >Yeah, that's the kicker. A car of this cost and caliber should have a
full
> >sized spare. It seems so flinty to have a space saver spare.
>
> You wouldn't like the E39 M5, then.

I did like the M5, but the 545 has made it irrelevant in terms of
completeness with only a slight disadvantage in speed and none in handling
(given base steering, not AS). And since few M5's will make it to a track in
numbers greater than 545's will, I don't exactly understand the desire to
drive an M5 in everyday urban/suburban settings. In fact, I feel the same
way about the E60 M5 within the context of being a car someone would want as
an everyday driver. I understand it as an exercise in one-up-manship or boy
racing (as far as the street goes), but I still find it an unusual
automobile for urban and suburban driving conditions.

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:34:13 -0600, "Ramone Cila" >
wrote:

>
>"Dan Drake" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:55:20 -0600, "Ramone Cila" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> All options specify a space saver
>> >> spare,
>> >
>> >Yeah, that's the kicker. A car of this cost and caliber should have a
>full
>> >sized spare. It seems so flinty to have a space saver spare.
>>
>> You wouldn't like the E39 M5, then.
>
>I did like the M5, but <etc., etc.>

My point was simply that it doesn't have a spare of any sort. That
was all.
--
Dan Drake

"Dan Drake" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:34:13 -0600, "Ramone Cila" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dan Drake" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:55:20 -0600, "Ramone Cila" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> All options specify a space saver
> >> >> spare,
> >> >
> >> >Yeah, that's the kicker. A car of this cost and caliber should have a
> >full
> >> >sized spare. It seems so flinty to have a space saver spare.
> >>
> >> You wouldn't like the E39 M5, then.
> >
> >I did like the M5, but <etc., etc.>
>
> My point was simply that it doesn't have a spare of any sort. That
> was all.

Oh, sorry. After all these years most Bimmerphiles know the E39 M5 didn't
have a spare, so I couldn't figure out the relevance of your comment. Hey, I
took a shot...and missed :^)

Sierichstrasse, Hamburg. (One-way only, however.)

DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Ramone Cila" > wrote in message
...
> Some of our cities have streets
> that are two way in the afternoon, one way North in the morning and
> one-way
> south in the evening and that in particular hasn't translated well in the
> NAV systems I've used. I imagine you have that in Europe as well, though I
> have not come across it.
........................

"Dori A Schmetterling" > haute in die Tasten:

> Sierichstrasse, Hamburg. (One-way only, however.)
>

Messeschnellweg in Hannover during CeBIT (six track freeway between
Hannover city and CeBIT Exhibition Site): In the morning all six tracks go
to the fairground, in the evening everything goes back. A funny thing to
get your Navi system puzzled;-)
--
please replace spam-muelleimer with fk-newsgroups for e-mail contact

Citroen - Made in Trance

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 08:49:21 -0700, "fbloogyudsr"
> wrote:

>"Andrew Thomas" > wrote
>> dizzy > wrote
>>> "Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote:
>>> Most all 4-bangers of >1.8L capacity have balance shafts, AFAIK.
>>
>> AFAYK
>>
>> Few mainstream petrol four-pots have balance shafts. No mainstream
>> petrol four from Ford, GM or VW features balance shafts (there's one
>> in the Audi, though - the 2.0 litre petrol.) Of manufacturers who
>> routinely fit them, only Alfa and BMW spring to mind. BMW started
>> fitting its fours with balance shafts in 1998, when practically no
>> manufacturer (possibly Honda) used them in a petrol engine.
>>
>> It's becoming more common in diesels - but then they need them more.
>
>Interestingly, SAAB (mentioned in another sub-thread) uses balance
>shafts in their 4-pot. So does Isuzu, Mitsubishi, Mazda, Hyundai,
>Chrysler, Nissan, Volvo, GM (Ecotec/Quad Four)... I wouldn't
>call that "few".

Honda uses balance shafts in all their >2L 4-poppers, as well, and has
for well over 10 years. Anyone who thinks that BMW is unique in this
regard is sadly misinformed.

On 29 Oct 2004 03:45:45 -0700,
(Andrew Thomas) wrote:

>dizzy > wrote in message >. ..
>> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 01:23:40 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > dizzy > wrote:
>> >> I'm never going back to a shaky, flatulent, 4-banger, that's for
>> >> sure...
>> >
>> >But the BMW fours are smoother than some sixes. They have balance shafts.
>>
>> Most all 4-bangers of >1.8L capacity have balance shafts, AFAIK.
>
>AFAYK
>
>Few mainstream petrol four-pots have balance shafts. No mainstream
>petrol four from Ford, GM or VW features balance shafts (there's one
>in the Audi, though - the 2.0 litre petrol.) Of manufacturers who
>routinely fit them, only Alfa and BMW spring to mind. BMW started
>fitting its fours with balance shafts in 1998, when practically no
>manufacturer (possibly Honda) used them in a petrol engine.

Wrong.

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:17:28 -0400, "Tom Korth"
> wrote:

>Since its inception in 2003, the Z4 has come standard with Bridgestone RE050
>run-flats on either 16", 17" or 18" wheels, depending on model and whether
>or not equipped with the sport package. The trunk is designed without a
>spare tire well and contains about 9 cu.ft. of space vs. about 5.5 cu ft in
>the preceding Z3 roadster.

See, this is what I'm saying. BMW wants to use run-flats so they can
save that space in the trunk. Maybe that's a good trade-off in the
Z4. But in a sedan, I don't like that solution. I want a spare tire.
I don't want to have to be forced to use run-flats, in both my Summer
and Winter tires.

Having no place for a spare in the new 3, if that indeed is the case,
is a SERIOUS drawback, IMO.

"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:17:28 -0400, "Tom Korth"
> > wrote:
>
> >Since its inception in 2003, the Z4 has come standard with Bridgestone
RE050
> >run-flats on either 16", 17" or 18" wheels, depending on model and
whether
> >or not equipped with the sport package. The trunk is designed without a
> >spare tire well and contains about 9 cu.ft. of space vs. about 5.5 cu ft
in
> >the preceding Z3 roadster.
>
> See, this is what I'm saying. BMW wants to use run-flats so they can
> save that space in the trunk. Maybe that's a good trade-off in the
> Z4. But in a sedan, I don't like that solution. I want a spare tire.
> I don't want to have to be forced to use run-flats, in both my Summer
> and Winter tires.
>
> Having no place for a spare in the new 3, if that indeed is the case,
> is a SERIOUS drawback, IMO.

According to the current AutoWeek the E90 will ***not*** have a spare tire,
but rather a puncture repair kit. According to the article they are doing
this because they have moved the battery "low down in the floor of the
trunk", thereby eliminating room for a spare well. The battery has been
moved there for balance purposes.

Since the new 3, unlike the new 5, does not use extensive aluminum in the
suspension, I guess they are looking for anyway possible to save weight and
balance the car. Anyway, you can find this info on page 17, center column
bottom of page.

I agree with you though...the elimination of a spare doesn't make sense. And
run-flats are crappy in my opinion.

"Ramone Cila" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> According to the current AutoWeek the E90 will ***not*** have a spare
> tire,
> but rather a puncture repair kit. According to the article they are doing
> this because they have moved the battery "low down in the floor of the
> trunk", thereby eliminating room for a spare well. The battery has been
> moved there for balance purposes.

Since the present E46 battery extends partially below the trunk floor, the
only gain I see is the weight savings by eliminating the spare. But if the
spare is included, the present battery location is fine for balance - sort
of a Catch 22!

> Since the new 3, unlike the new 5, does not use extensive aluminum in the
> suspension, I guess they are looking for anyway possible to save weight
> and
> balance the car. Anyway, you can find this info on page 17, center column
> bottom of page.
>
> I agree with you though...the elimination of a spare doesn't make sense.
> And
> run-flats are crappy in my opinion.
>

Although I can live with the run flats on the Z4, I think I'll hold onto my
'99 328i until they at least offer a space saver.

Tom