|
|
04-11-2013, 09:15 PM | #23 |
First Lieutenant
22
Rep 344
Posts |
Agreed. With all the other options out there I'd feel like a fool spending $35K for a bare bones 200hp 320i. Hell, you can pick up a Mustang GT with double the HP for less than that. I guess it depends on your priorities, though. Personally, HP is at the top of my list.
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-11-2013, 09:44 PM | #24 |
Private First Class
13
Rep 116
Posts |
I'd take a good look at the 320i as a daily driver if you can get it just over invoice. Just slightly more than a loaded GTI with better looks, RWD, and more grown up styling...and since it's the same (detuned) engine as the 328 you know you're only a few parts away from a legit do-it-all sports sedan.
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-12-2013, 03:59 PM | #25 | |
Aquarian
10
Rep 298
Posts |
Quote:
Since you asked, the low-MPG M engines (such as the M3's V8) are being phased out primarily due to impending Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations from the United States. These environmental regulations stipulate the average fuel economy required for all manufacturers selling cars within the US. They've existed for some time, but new EPA guidelines will raise the required average MPG substantially over the next several years. Compliance with these particular regulatory strictures are why many manufacturers, including BMW, are phasing out high performance naturally-aspirated engines in favor of forced-induction models, if not electric/hybrid motors. (You'll note that the latest projections indicate the F82 M3 will actually have less crank horsepower than the E92 M3. This is a direct result of this trend.) Not to turn this into a policy debate, but CAFE regulations are so far removed from any type of "clean air or water" protections, that only a dedicated ideologue could claim any reasonable "protection" results from the CAFE rules. A pure carbon tax, for one example, would be FAR more effective in both preventing environmental damage, and preserving the high performance engines as well. (This is from an economic perspective.) Such a policy would be certainly "environmental" in its goals, but it also would be a significant policy departure from the current regime mandated by the EPA. It also would be a lot more effective, save more money, and let us keep our awesome engines. The point is, environmentalists qua "people who like clean air and water" were not the people who phased out the M3 V8. A bunch of lawyers funded by green energy interests, qua "environmentalists", did that. There is a big difference. Not all "environmental" legislation protects air and water with equal effectiveness. In fact, there's substantial variation. I just want to make sure people recognize nuances of the issue, on both sides.
__________________
2013 M3 Coupe Individual | Laguna Seca Blue | 6MT | Black Extended | Piano Black | Moonroof
MS Stage II Intake + Test Pipes | Dinan Pulley | BPM Tune | Racing Dynamics Springs | IND painted accessories | ZCP Knob | OSS Angel Eyes |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|