[dvhees0]

it is a total different car.... at this moment (I have my car for 14 days now)... I didn't found something that is worse , only things that are better.

Very very nice car to drive with!!
E90-320d-163hp (Belgium)

[aem]

Originally Posted by akhbhaat

Interesting; most would claim the opposite on both accounts.

To me, the front bumber is a little oversized comparing to the nostrils and headlights, and it skewed out on the sides (like a girl's dress)...unlike the e46 coupe where the everything is proportional...

[LEDZEP]

The E90/1 are the first BMWs I've owned, so my comments are obviously slanted. But I've driven loaner E46s and seen them for years. Personally, I think the curved dash of the E46 - while it might seem more ergonomic is a minus. It makes the already smaller interior seem even more cramped. I do agree that they could have added a cubby or two in the E90 for small item storage, but the interior of the E90 is nearly perfect to me. I also love the exterior design, and yes even the tail lights.

I personally like the innovation of the runflats as well. I don't consider it a gimmik at all, and I guarantee you will see more brands moving to this in the next few years. Feeling that you're losing something because you don't have a donut spare in your trunk is like people felt when they no longer had a carburator. You'll get used to it and you find that it's better. First time you have a blowout at 65-70 MPH you'll be damned glad you have runflats. Many serious accidents are the result of losing control at high speed when a tire shreds.

[wac77]

Almost everything is better in the E90, other than a few minor interior details, like cupholders, non-adjustable seatbelt anchors, and lack of stowage space.

[StevoSEA]

Originally Posted by aem

I've noticed alot of new cars nowadays have dipped down door arm rest like the e90 (eg Nissans). This is a negative in my eyes cos it's just isnt classy.

The e46 has it all except a "new" design look, it looks better built and everything sorta compliment the other extremely well (interiorly and exteriorily). the only think is the sedan is abit small and very dated.

The e90 shines in the rear and sides department, the front is abit bland. I hate the fact that it came out with no side moulds (side stripes on door for protection). It has better clusters and the dials are on par.

You can tell that BMW tried to reduce cost by doing some shortcuts in the design and what have you. But it's something minor given the 6 speed auto and run flat as standard i suppose...

I would choose the e90 sedan over the e46, but rather the e46 coupe over all.

Just Fyi about mouldings and "bland" styling in BMW's..all auto manufacturers have fuel and safety standards that must be met and since adding safty devices adds additional weight which increases fuel consumption, areodynamics (cd) is one way to counter act the additional weight/fuel consumption problem.THIS IS THE MAIN REASON SO MANY CAR DESIGNS LOOK THE SAME. having to design in a wind tunnel significantly cuts down on design choices. I read of one engineer who said that the most areodynamically efficient design would require that we drive cars shaped like a cigar!

[F32Fleet]

IMHO you'll find that people who used to own a 325/323 E46 will rave about the 325 E90 mostly due to the increased power. The 328/330 owners have been generally be ho hum. I think the ZHP owners are the most pessimistic of the bunch because we didn't purchase our cars for the amenities.

The sport seats and the leather are much improved in the E90. Logic 7 is nice, but I'm not an audiophile so that's not important to me.

IDrive is a nice idea, but again, that's not important to me. Infact, I-Drive has ruined the dash because BMW had to make the dash long and flat in order to save money when manufacturing dashboards which will have I-Drive. I-Drive is the center piece of the BMW interior these days. No getting away from that.


Runflats are good idea, and although the selection is limited now that will change with time.

Give me a 130i M-Sport and I'll be one happy camper.

[imageWIS]

Originally Posted by Socom

Give me a 130i M-Sport and I'll be one happy camper.

I hope you didn’t see the episode of Top Gear when they tested the 130i M-Sport version vs. the VW R32…the BMW got very bad marks and was a second slower than the R32 around the track.

Jon.

[england1987]

I prefer the E90 design by far. I bought a c-class because I preferred the styling of the interior more than the E46. I have ordered an E90 now though. I never liked the angled console design of BMW. But now with the new E90, they haven't aimed it toward the driver as much. plus this style looks much more modern, cleaner and simpler. The exterior on the E90 is fantastic. I love the lines on the side. The shapes of the hood, lights and body in general are awesome. The tail lights took some getting used too, but now I like them (I prefer the blackline). They didn't bangle the trunk like the 7-series. However, the window buttons are in the dumberest place ever. I also am not so keen on the M-sport front bumper, it just doesn't look like it belongs there. The seats are very comfortable on the sport and non-sport packages. The 3er in my opinion is the best looking and styled non-M BMW currently made. And I cant wait to get mine

[akhbhaat]

Originally Posted by LEDZEP

I personally like the innovation of the runflats as well. I don't consider it a gimmik at all, and I guarantee you will see more brands moving to this in the next few years. Feeling that you're losing something because you don't have a donut spare in your trunk is like people felt when they no longer had a carburator. You'll get used to it and you find that it's better. First time you have a blowout at 65-70 MPH you'll be damned glad you have runflats. Many serious accidents are the result of losing control at high speed when a tire shreds.

Well, let's look at the main "advantages" of runflats, point-by-point.

Runflats will prevent a crash caused by a high speed blowout.

Possibly, but the blowout alone is not the cause of the crash; driver panic is. A blowout will violently disrupt the car's balance for a moment and, of course, traction changes completely. Inexperienced and/or incompetent drivers (which do make up an enormous bulk of the US population) will tend to panic and react impetuously. This is what results in a loss of control leading to a crash. I myself have experienced a blowout at freeway speeds and was easily able to bring to car to a gradual stop without further incident. It's even been proven through testing that the vast majority of SUV rollovers caused by blowouts were due to the same reason.

Runflats are considerably more stable during blowouts due to the stiff sidewalls, but proper driver training with regular tires could ultimately give the same results. Of course, I'm not going to flat out deny that run flats AREN'T a benefit here - but a pricey one, and as I pointed out, a blowout with a regular tire doesn't have to result in a crash or loss of control unless the driver wants it to.

Runflats eliminate the spare and increase trunk room.

Statistically, the E90's trunk volume has increased by 16%, from 291.6 to 339.8 liters (10.3 to 12 cubic feet). Subjectively, this difference isn't really pronounced - the trunk opening hasn't enlarged (to accomodate bulky items) all that much, and some of the extra space is taken up by an otherwise useless storage tray. I consider this a wash. It's not as though 1.7 cubic feet is an enormous space even on paper.

Runflats eliminate the dangers and hassle of changing out a wheel along a busy shoulder or in a bad neighborhood.

Yes, but then you have less than 150 miles (is there any "and/or/whichever comes first" time limit attached to that figure? there'd almost have to be...) to find a reputable tire shop to repair or replace your blown tire! How is that ultimately any less of a hassle than the immediate (10-15 minute) inconvenience changing to a fully functional spare tire (which can essentially be used indefinitely)? I'd say it's more of a hassle! You could be at the shop for well over an hour, not including the time it takes to find one (though I'm sure the nav system has a built-in database of them :lmao: ), you could be unfairly charged if you're not familiar with the shop or its reputation...hell, they might not even have the right type of tire in stock, meaning you'll either have to replace it again later, or drive around for thousands of miles with a mismatched set of tires (dangerous, as they always have different grip/behavior properties).

As for finding a safe place to change the spare, there's nothing to stop you from slowly driving farther off the road, if on the interstate, or into a nearby parking lot if in a city climate. And I really don't know anyone who knowingly takes their $40,000 car through a neighborhood they wouldn't feel comfortable stopping in.

Oh, and if the tire cannot be repaired and needs to be replaced, have fun paying the $300+ fee for a new one (sport package owners get really screwed - thanks to BMW's unexplainable decision to use a staggered setup - which increases understeer considerably - the tires can't even be rotated and wear out at shorter intervals because of that, especially the wider rears which cost even more!). Note that if you decide to use most or all of the tire's effective post-flat/blowout range, the tire will effectively be destroyed with NO chance of successful repair.

Runflats eliminate the need to periodically check the tire pressure in the spare and/or inflate it if necessary.

Minor, minor inconvenience. Takes a minute once every month or two. Who cares?

Those are the supposed advantages. As you can see - at least from my point of view - none of them are really worthwhile and do not justify the cost. I'm not going to bother covering the glaring disadvantages in any detail (cost, ride quality, performance, etc) - those are already well documented.

Still gimmicky, I say, and for one main reason: price. If runflats cost the same as regular tires and were as easy to find as regular tires, I could ignore some of the flaws.

As it is, however, if I buy an E90, I'm going to toss the runflats as soon as they've worn out and replace them with regular performance tires and a steel spare in the trunk (at least for for highway hauls) and/or the M mobility kits used with the E46 M3. Anyone wanna take bets on whether the E90/E92 M3 has RFTs or not?

[GoBonesGo]

Originally Posted by climkt

one negative feature of the e90 which i have my doubts are the introduction of runflats and the lack of a spare wheel and jack. Cannot help feeling that this is a new bmw gimmick, just like the start stop button.

No comment on the spare tire issue, but the start/stop button is most certainly not a gimmick. It may feel gimmicky to folks who still have to physically insert the key into the dash, but its real purpose is to enable Comfort Access. A start/stop button is the most logical way to start or stop a car with the key still in your pocket. The E90, Infiniti M45, and Lexus GS430 & IS350 are the cars I've driven with Comfort Access-equivalent features and they all had a start/stop button. (There are others, of course.)

I think CA is one of those features (like power windows, cruise control, and keyless entry) that start out with lots of people thinking they're useless gimmicks, but over time turn into standard features on a large percentage of vehicles.

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by akhbhaat

Well, let's look at the main "advantages" of runflats, point-by-point.

Runflats will prevent a crash caused by a high speed blowout.

Possibly, but the blowout alone is not the cause of the crash; driver panic is. A blowout will violently disrupt the car's balance for a moment and, of course, traction changes completely. Inexperienced and/or incompetent drivers (which do make up an enormous bulk of the US population) will tend to panic and react impetuously. This is what results in a loss of control leading to a crash. I myself have experienced a blowout at freeway speeds and was easily able to bring to car to a gradual stop without further incident. It's even been proven through testing that the vast majority of SUV rollovers caused by blowouts were due to the same reason.

Runflats are considerably more stable during blowouts due to the stiff sidewalls, but proper driver training with regular tires could ultimately give the same results. Of course, I'm not going to flat out deny that run flats AREN'T a benefit here - but a pricey one, and as I pointed out, a blowout with a regular tire doesn't have to result in a crash or loss of control unless the driver wants it to.

Runflats eliminate the spare and increase trunk room.

Statistically, the E90's trunk volume has increased by 16%, from 291.6 to 339.8 liters (10.3 to 12 cubic feet). Subjectively, this difference isn't really pronounced - the trunk opening hasn't enlarged (to accomodate bulky items) all that much, and some of the extra space is taken up by an otherwise useless storage tray. I consider this a wash. It's not as though 1.7 cubic feet is an enormous space even on paper.

Runflats eliminate the dangers and hassle of changing out a wheel along a busy shoulder or in a bad neighborhood.

Yes, but then you have less than 150 miles (is there any "and/or/whichever comes first" time limit attached to that figure? there'd almost have to be...) to find a reputable tire shop to repair or replace your blown tire! How is that ultimately any less of a hassle than the immediate (10-15 minute) inconvenience changing to a fully functional spare tire (which can essentially be used indefinitely)? I'd say it's more of a hassle! You could be at the shop for well over an hour, not including the time it takes to find one (though I'm sure the nav system has a built-in database of them :lmao: ), you could be unfairly charged if you're not familiar with the shop or its reputation...hell, they might not even have the right type of tire in stock, meaning you'll either have to replace it again later, or drive around for thousands of miles with a mismatched set of tires (dangerous, as they always have different grip/behavior properties).

As for finding a safe place to change the spare, there's nothing to stop you from slowly driving farther off the road, if on the interstate, or into a nearby parking lot if in a city climate. And I really don't know anyone who knowingly takes their $40,000 car through a neighborhood they wouldn't feel comfortable stopping in.

Oh, and if the tire cannot be repaired and needs to be replaced, have fun paying the $300+ fee for a new one (sport package owners get really screwed - thanks to BMW's unexplainable decision to use a staggered setup - which increases understeer considerably - the tires can't even be rotated and wear out at shorter intervals because of that, especially the wider rears which cost even more!). Note that if you decide to use most or all of the tire's effective post-flat/blowout range, the tire will effectively be destroyed with NO chance of successful repair.

Runflats eliminate the need to periodically check the tire pressure in the spare and/or inflate it if necessary.

Minor, minor inconvenience. Takes a minute once every month or two. Who cares?

Those are the supposed advantages. As you can see - at least from my point of view - none of them are really worthwhile and do not justify the cost. I'm not going to bother covering the glaring disadvantages in any detail (cost, ride quality, performance, etc) - those are already well documented.

Still gimmicky, I say, and for one main reason: price. If runflats cost the same as regular tires and were as easy to find as regular tires, I could ignore some of the flaws.

As it is, however, if I buy an E90, I'm going to toss the runflats as soon as they've worn out and replace them with regular performance tires and a steel spare in the trunk (at least for for highway hauls) and/or the M mobility kits used with the E46 M3. Anyone wanna take bets on whether the E90/E92 M3 has RFTs or not?

Blame the Ford Explorer/Firestone tire fiasco for this. Tire pressure monitoring systems are mandated in the US and I bet runflats will be in the future.

Runflats will help prevent bad drivers from wrecking their cars since we do not require any sort of intensive driving training in the US.

The majority of Americans live and work within a 50 mile radius. This will give them ample time to find a replacement for the runflat if it can't be repaired.

I would also like to suggest that the majority of the spares out there are old and therefore unsafe.

So as you can see, for the overwhelming majority of car owners, runflats are a good thing and not gimmicky.

Give runflat technology some time. They'll get better.

[StevoSEA]

Originally Posted by akhbhaat

Well, let's look at the main "advantages" of runflats, point-by-point.

Runflats will prevent a crash caused by a high speed blowout.

Possibly, but the blowout alone is not the cause of the crash; driver panic is. A blowout will violently disrupt the car's balance for a moment and, of course, traction changes completely. Inexperienced and/or incompetent drivers (which do make up an enormous bulk of the US population) will tend to panic and react impetuously. This is what results in a loss of control leading to a crash. I myself have experienced a blowout at freeway speeds and was easily able to bring to car to a gradual stop without further incident. It's even been proven through testing that the vast majority of SUV rollovers caused by blowouts were due to the same reason.

Runflats are considerably more stable during blowouts due to the stiff sidewalls, but proper driver training with regular tires could ultimately give the same results. Of course, I'm not going to flat out deny that run flats AREN'T a benefit here - but a pricey one, and as I pointed out, a blowout with a regular tire doesn't have to result in a crash or loss of control unless the driver wants it to.

Runflats eliminate the spare and increase trunk room.

Statistically, the E90's trunk volume has increased by 16%, from 291.6 to 339.8 liters (10.3 to 12 cubic feet). Subjectively, this difference isn't really pronounced - the trunk opening hasn't enlarged (to accomodate bulky items) all that much, and some of the extra space is taken up by an otherwise useless storage tray. I consider this a wash. It's not as though 1.7 cubic feet is an enormous space even on paper.

Runflats eliminate the dangers and hassle of changing out a wheel along a busy shoulder or in a bad neighborhood.

Yes, but then you have less than 150 miles (is there any "and/or/whichever comes first" time limit attached to that figure? there'd almost have to be...) to find a reputable tire shop to repair or replace your blown tire! How is that ultimately any less of a hassle than the immediate (10-15 minute) inconvenience changing to a fully functional spare tire (which can essentially be used indefinitely)? I'd say it's more of a hassle! You could be at the shop for well over an hour, not including the time it takes to find one (though I'm sure the nav system has a built-in database of them :lmao: ), you could be unfairly charged if you're not familiar with the shop or its reputation...hell, they might not even have the right type of tire in stock, meaning you'll either have to replace it again later, or drive around for thousands of miles with a mismatched set of tires (dangerous, as they always have different grip/behavior properties).

As for finding a safe place to change the spare, there's nothing to stop you from slowly driving farther off the road, if on the interstate, or into a nearby parking lot if in a city climate. And I really don't know anyone who knowingly takes their $40,000 car through a neighborhood they wouldn't feel comfortable stopping in.

Oh, and if the tire cannot be repaired and needs to be replaced, have fun paying the $300+ fee for a new one (sport package owners get really screwed - thanks to BMW's unexplainable decision to use a staggered setup - which increases understeer considerably - the tires can't even be rotated and wear out at shorter intervals because of that, especially the wider rears which cost even more!). Note that if you decide to use most or all of the tire's effective post-flat/blowout range, the tire will effectively be destroyed with NO chance of successful repair.

Runflats eliminate the need to periodically check the tire pressure in the spare and/or inflate it if necessary.

Minor, minor inconvenience. Takes a minute once every month or two. Who cares?

Those are the supposed advantages. As you can see - at least from my point of view - none of them are really worthwhile and do not justify the cost. I'm not going to bother covering the glaring disadvantages in any detail (cost, ride quality, performance, etc) - those are already well documented.

Still gimmicky, I say, and for one main reason: price. If runflats cost the same as regular tires and were as easy to find as regular tires, I could ignore some of the flaws.

As it is, however, if I buy an E90, I'm going to toss the runflats as soon as they've worn out and replace them with regular performance tires and a steel spare in the trunk (at least for for highway hauls) and/or the M mobility kits used with the E46 M3. Anyone wanna take bets on whether the E90/E92 M3 has RFTs or not?

It won't---BMW has decided not to use RFT on any M-cars because they still cannot achieve maximum adhesion at the tires limits that z-rated hp summer tires can. even though BMW also claims That RFT on the any BMW will stop faster and will use less fuel per gallon/ltr than the same vehicle equiped with same size and rated conventional tires.

[akhbhaat]

Originally Posted by Socom

Blame the Ford Explorer/Firestone tire fiasco for this. Tire pressure monitoring systems are mandated in the US and I bet runflats will be in the future.

Runflats will help prevent bad drivers from wrecking their cars since we do not require any sort of intensive driving training in the US.

No doubt.

The majority of Americans live and work within a 50 mile radius. This will give them ample time to find a replacement for the runflat if it can't be repaired.

Yes, but what of a time limit? I'd imagine that the sidewall can't support the weight of the car indefinitely. One day? Two? Eight hours? Twelve?

Give runflat technology some time. They'll get better.

I'm hoping for this, because as of right now, I don't want them - even though I know that they represent the future.

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by akhbhaat

Yes, but what of a time limit? I'd imagine that the sidewall can't support the weight of the car indefinitely. One day? Two? Eight hours? Twelve?

I've never heard of a time limit. You obviously don't want to drive on them for more than a couple of days.

[FastAttackNick]

The point about lessoned performance in normal driving situations is the thing I'd like to remedy. There's no harm in changing out with conventional high performance tires - but I have read some stuff about the suspension being "tuned" for runflats and therefore the ride and response suffers with "normal" tires. True? Comments?

[LEDZEP]

akhbhaat - we're all entitled to our opinions, and I certainly didn't mean to turn this thread into yet another debate about run flats. Though I disagree with most of your points (mainly due to the context in which they are presented and the assumptions made), I certainly respect them, and appreciate that you make an intelligent and articulate argument. This is refreshing, since most debates on the forum have disintegrated into "uh-huh" and "nu-uh".

One point I'll give you is that an experienced driver or even a calm educated driver is capable of safely manuvering a vehicle with a high speed blowout to a safe stop, those individuals are a very rare breed in the U.S. This is a culture in which people see nothing wrong with eating donuts, drinking coffee, applying makeup, and especially yakking on their goddamn cell phones while driving. Heaven forbid they think that doing 70 mph in thick traffic is worthy of their undevided attention. But I digress... Maybe I'd feel better if everyone else on the road had RFTs so they won't take me with them when they crash.

I consider myself an above average driver, but I've never had a blowout or a simulated experience of one, so I have no clue how I would react. I have to tell you that I like the idea that my wife is driving on run flats and if she has a blowout she'll be able to drive home and park in the garage (at which point it will be my problem to deal with).

FastAttackNick - first off, welcome to the jungle. I can't really speak to the claim that performance would suffer with conventional tires on the E90, but it is true that the car was designed to have run flats and the suspension is tuned for them. This is (these are) my first BMW so I can't compare to a previous ride, but I have had other sport sedans and coupes and I don't feel that anything is sacrificed. If you read the article in the January Roundel magazine you will find that they took a stock E90 with RFTs onto the track and though skeptical at first, they were impressed.

In the end it's still a matter of opinion. But if I were dead set agains RFTs I would buy a different car, not buy an E90 and then swap out the tires.



Anyway - good debate! Even if we are

[visor]

Don't want to turn this into a RFT thread..
but one possible advantage:
anyone remember the car chase involving the 330i?
Kept on going despite police laying down tire puncture strips!

[peakpro]

Originally Posted by bimmer4me

I think everything about the e90 is better except for...
1) the e46 curved dash
2) the e90 styling; it is a little bland, IMO

ditto

[merit eliot]

I think that the e90 is so much better. I (at first) thought that the e46 had better styling, but now I like the e90 styling better.
some of my favorite improvements:
1. door handles only have to pull them once to open the door
2. doors are lighter and don't fly back on my shins when getting out of the car
3. more lumbar support
4. two dials on dash board looks cooler
5. turn signal details
6. radio gets louder when you speed up and quiter when you slow down
7. standard ipod jack
8. ipod jack in center console not glovebox
9. controls mostly on the one right side lever
10. dual temp zones
11. center console improvements
12. smaller key fits nice in pants pocket
13. trunk key slot under trunk instead of on face of it

some things that arent as good
1. manual book does not fit in glovebox
2. no change area in e90. the e46 has a cool turning change compartment

[tonee8519]

Originally Posted by lux.sh

rear taillight.

i wish that bangle could've made it look better too. other then that, the car is like perfect to me.

[climkt]

I knew the runflat tyres were highly controversial and it is great to see high volume debate on the issue. if any munich boys/ engineers are reading this, kindly make a bigger space in the boot , so 3 series owners (your main customer majority )can have a choice, if they decide to stick with conventional tyres and a spare wheel. much appreciated. no choice is a tough pill to take!!!

[BMW F22]

Originally Posted by imageWIS

So, what do you think is better or worse when comparing the old 3 to the new 3?

Personally, I think the interior design, with the curving cash geared towards the driver was perfect on the E46, as well the feel and manufacture of the interior materials felt better.

Jon.

not trying to discriminate. But does anyone else find it funny that the original poster drives a an Audi???