[Obioban]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I'll put up my 417,000 mile E90 to any E90 on the Forum that have been maintained to a quarter or half the miles my car has and see how well they compare. Mine is on the original rear subframe bushings, and engine mounts. The front end I refreshed at 336K and the control arm bushings and ball joints were nearly as tight as the new parts I put in. The only rear bushings I've replaced are the outer ball sockets on the lower control arms. All the other 4 links are original, as are the sawybar links (front and rear).

I live in an area in Central Virginia west of DC that has fantsstic country roads, which are so good the sportbike guys from DC come out to ride. Up until the end of '21 I drove the E90 very hard on those roads on a daily basis. Hell, the 1-mile long, 11-turn corkscrew that drops 900 feet (it makes Laguna Seca look like a training track for babies) 2 miles from my house I've driven the E90 probably 4,000 miles just on that one section of road alone. The freshest rubber bushings on my car are now 81,000 miles old, Lol.

Other than the need for a new AC pump for comfort, I'd jump in my E90 and take it across country all on back roads through small towns that rarely see a BMW. In fact I pretty much did that in my wife's then 20 year old, 177,000 mile '97 Z3. We road tripped it from Virginia to the Rockies in 2017. 10 days, 5,600 miles.

Sorry, but if you were commuting 105 miles a day in your E39 M5 it wouldn't need that level of maintenance and why would you run soft summer sport tires on it?

100% agree with you on new cars, especially BMWs. They suck.

As far as I'm concerned, the non M e9X subframe bushings are failed from new. Once you delete the runflat tires, the stock subframe bushings make the non M e9X feel like a body on frame car with failed body mounts-- I moved to M3 subframe bushings on our e91 with <10,000 miles on the clock because I couldn't stand how severely compromised the car felt with stock subframe bushings.

High performance tires: I was doing my 105 mile commute in less than an hour of commuting... AND there was a high speed backroad section. The tires were matched to the task.

I think most people's cars, over 100,000 miles, have severely compromised driving experiences vs new and they don't realize it. Bushings/bearings wear out slowly, and there's a lot of slowly boiled frog going on. It's also just easier to drop the entire front/rear end and replace everything in one go, rather than doing one or two at a time as diagnosed formally as bad. I can do every bushing/bearings/balljoint on the car in 8 hours, or a can do a single control arm in 1-2 hours.

Easy access:

[Cos270]

More nails in the coffin.

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/2...hicles-by-2035

https://www.motor1.com/news/595006/e...gine-ban-2035/

https://www.dw.com/en/eu-agrees-new-...035/a-62296555

[chris719]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

From my perspective, no. Too much tech that takes away from the driving experience. Once computer aided chassis control substituted for great chassis engineering, BMW (and all others) went inside the car to add tech that distracts from the visceral driving experience and perhaps the intellectual side as well.

An E90 328i, for example, is frankly utterly forgettable, boring, and soft in comparison to an M2. Even a regular F22 is more fun.

[M3WC]

Originally Posted by Cos270

More nails in the coffin.

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/2...hicles-by-2035

https://www.motor1.com/news/595006/e...gine-ban-2035/

https://www.dw.com/en/eu-agrees-new-...035/a-62296555

This is the crazy part from those articles.

The European Parliament wants the EU to go even further by banning sales of used ones as well.

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by chris719

An E90 328i, for example, is frankly utterly forgettable, boring, and soft in comparison to an M2. Even a regular F22 is more fun.

Just no.

EPS in the F22 (and all bmws) is garbage, turbo engine dynamics are boring and annoying, and you get much less useable space in a similarly sized car in the F22 than e90 (meaningful because smaller cars always drive better, all else equal, but practical needs exist).

[freakystyly]

Not going to argue, but the F generation cars took a step in the wrong direction. The EPS, soft(er) bushings along with no natural aspiration and increased weight. The 2 series isn't really that tiny compared to the E90, certainly not lighter.

on EVs, we need more affordable options for vehicles before the total ban. Who is going to offer a $5000 EV? Are they expecting people to walk?

[CarsAndGuitars]

Originally Posted by freakystyly

on EVs, we need more affordable options for vehicles before the total ban. Who is going to offer a $5000 EV? Are they expecting people to walk?

$5K? Maybe a certified pre-owned golf cart?

[kyriian]

Originally Posted by freakystyly

on EVs, we need more affordable options for vehicles before the total ban. Who is going to offer a $5000 EV? Are they expecting people to walk?

^This pretty much...
In Canada, the cheapest EV is the Hyundai Ioniq, and it is 45k
compared to the cheapest new ICE car the Chevy spark is 11k. That's not a small amount of money, the difference is a year's salary (pre tax) for a lot of people.

The elites just want to limit the peons from traveling, sounds like we are going back to the Victorian times.

Where are these millions of EV going to charge, the grid is strained as it is in most countries. Are they expecting all the EVs will be powered by hopes and dreams?

[Murf the Surf]

Originally Posted by kyriian

^This pretty much...
In Canada, the cheapest EV is the Hyundai Ioniq, and it is 45k
compared to the cheapest new ICE car the Chevy spark is 11k. That's not a small amount of money, the difference is a year's salary (pre tax) for a lot of people.

The elites just want to limit the peons from traveling, sounds like we are going back to the Victorian times.

Where are these millions of EV going to charge, the grid is strained as it is in most countries. Are they expecting all the EVs will be powered by hopes and dreams?

That $44K price Delta buys a lot of gas. And lets face it, how many people actually buy new cars? I have only ever bought one and I can afford to go new but many can not. What will the used EV market look like, I don't see laying down money to buy a car that might need a $10K battery replacement.

[freakystyly]

Yeah, if you take a look around on your average drive around town. Run a quick price estimate in your head of the cars you see. How many old early 2000s civics and corollas are people using for commuting? EVs simply haven't been around long enough and in large enough volumes to depreciate to a cheap commuter car level.

[Murf the Surf]

Originally Posted by freakystyly

Yeah, if you take a look around on your average drive around town. Run a quick price estimate in your head of the cars you see. How many old early 2000s civics and corollas are people using for commuting? EVs simply haven't been around long enough and in large enough volumes to depreciate to a cheap commuter car level.

A couple of factors that will impact how the used EV market will pan out. Most people keep their cars statistically 8 years I believe, I suspect many who buy EV's will want to upgrade sooner though. How will they depreciate, will it be faster than ICE, after all I suspect range anxiety is a big factor stopping uptake, degraded batteries won't make it better. I guess time will tell.

[shawnhayes]

Originally Posted by Murf the Surf

A couple of factors that will impact how the used EV market will pan out. Most people keep their cars statistically 8 years I believe, I suspect many who buy EV's will want to upgrade sooner though. How will they depreciate, will it be faster than ICE, after all I suspect range anxiety is a big factor stopping uptake, degraded batteries won't make it better. I guess time will tell.

We're still debating what will happen in 13 years though. 13 years is an eternity in the automotive world. What we do today may not be able to accurately predict where we end up, but the point is to put us on track.

Relying on fossil fuel technology has helped Europe end up where they are now with Russia. The decisions made 10 years ago directionally put them dependent on a egomaniacal dictator with designs on world domination. For people who say "what we have now is good enough", that's what they're investing in. For me, Mad Max's glimpse into the future doesn't look appealing. Having my own home solar and windmill charging up my electric car looks a lot more appealing. Can't run your own petroleum well and refinery in your back yard as easily. Ethanol? Maybe. But you need 15% petrol in there to keep the water out.

Shawn

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by shawnhayes

We're still debating what will happen in 13 years though. 13 years is an eternity in the automotive world. What we do today may not be able to accurately predict where we end up, but the point is to put us on track.

Relying on fossil fuel technology has helped Europe end up where they are now with Russia. The decisions made 10 years ago directionally put them dependent on a egomaniacal dictator with designs on world domination. For people who say "what we have now is good enough", that's what they're investing in. For me, Mad Max's glimpse into the future doesn't look appealing. Having my own home solar and windmill charging up my electric car looks a lot more appealing. Can't run your own petroleum well and refinery in your back yard as easily. Ethanol? Maybe. But you need 15% petrol in there to keep the water out.

Shawn

Yep. I have a 19kw Tesla solar roof (the solar shingles-- not the panels) and 4 powerwalls, with zero regrets. The power grid can go offline indefinitely, and nothing about my house changes-- with no generator noise/upkeep/fueling.

...And when the grid's not offline, I get a check for $300-400 per month from the electric company, and have no gas/oil bill.

[shawnhayes]

Originally Posted by Obioban

Yep. I have a 19kw Tesla solar roof (the solar shingles-- not the panels) and 4 powerwalls, with zero regrets. The power grid can go offline indefinitely, and nothing about my house changes-- with no generator noise/upkeep/fueling.

...And when the grid's not offline, I get a check for $300-400 per month from the electric company, and have no gas/oil bill.

Hard to argue with this. How much did that system cost?

Shawn

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by shawnhayes

Hard to argue with this. How much did that system cost?

Shawn

$125,000, but that includes the roof.

... and then 26% of it was a tax rebate.

If you figure my roof otherwise would have been $50,000, and subtract the tax rebate, it cost me $42,500 beyond a normal roof.

Subtract a whole house generator cost from there (which I didn't get because this serves the same function), and it cost me $30,000.

... and $30,000 is a pretty fast payback period with no electric bill, no gas/oil bill, all of our EV charge bill, and the electric company writing me checks every month.

[Obioban]

For context of the electric company writing me a check each month, I'm on net metering with this as my price structure:



So, when the grid is online, this is how my house works

I charge the car and house batteries every night at super off peak-- so I pay $0.03 per kwh.

I drain the powerwalls to 20% into the grid every day, at peak pricing-- so I get paid $0.23 per kwh from the batteries. The powerwalls are smart enough to distribute the drain so they hit 20% at 6pm-- so any power we actually use during that time come from our own batteries. Our water heater is also programmed to avoid heating water during peak pricing. In short, that's ~43kwh/day just from the batteries charging overnight at super off peak and discharging on peak-- so $8.60 per day from that

In addition, much of my 19kw of solar production occurs during peak pricing-- so I'm generating 10-19 kw per hour in that period off solar when it's sunny-- ~45kwh per day when sunny, so ~$10 per day from that (on sunny days).

Combined, we get paid $250-400/month from the electric company, even with all our utilities being electric and most of our miles being on an electric car.
(this was what I meant earlier when I said it's tricky to calculate what the i3 actually costs us to drive)

I limit the battery discharge to 20% for two reasons:
1) batteries wear much faster if deeply discharged, and 20% seems to be a reasonable stop point to avoid that
2) if there's an unexpected power outage, I don't want to be without power. 20% of 4 powerwalls is generally enough to always get me through until the suns out to recharge them again.

The powerwalls have a feature called "storm watch". If weather is such that a blackout is more likely, they will fully charge themselves off the grid so that they're ready at 100%.


When the grid is offline, the house functions as you'd expect-- charges from the sun, uses power from the batteries. In the case of extreme cold and no sun, I do have a wood stove for backup heat, but that has not yet come up. The Tesla roof has a warming/self clearing function, so you don't have to worry about that.

[shawnhayes]

Originally Posted by Obioban

$125,000, but that includes the roof.

... and then 26% of it was a tax rebate.

If you figure my roof otherwise would have been $50,000, and subtract the tax rebate, it cost me $42,500 beyond a normal roof.

Subtract a whole house generator cost from there (which I didn't get because this serves the same function), and it cost me $30,000.

... and $30,000 is a pretty fast payback period with no electric bill, no gas/oil bill, all of our EV charge bill, and the electric company writing me checks every month.

Everyone has to do the math where they are. My coming system will be $88,000 with one PowerWall, but is panels. I just had a $9,000 roof put on, and panels are supposedly more efficient than the shingles.

But a $50,000 roof where you live? Sheesh. Either your roofers are driving really nice cars, or you have a really big house, or both.

Shawn

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by shawnhayes

Everyone has to do the math where they are. My coming system will be $88,000 with one PowerWall, but is panels. I just had a $9,000 roof put on, and panels are supposedly more efficient than the shingles.

But a $50,000 roof where you live? Sheesh. Either your roofers are driving really nice cars, or you have a really big house, or both.

Shawn

I wasn't comparing to asphalt shingles, as that's not what I would have otherwise used. Had we not gone with the Solar roof, it would have been either slate (probably this) or metal.

[x3sm]

Originally Posted by Obioban

$125,000, but that includes the roof.

... and then 26% of it was a tax rebate.

If you figure my roof otherwise would have been $50,000, and subtract the tax rebate, it cost me $42,500 beyond a normal roof.

Subtract a whole house generator cost from there (which I didn't get because this serves the same function), and it cost me $30,000.

... and $30,000 is a pretty fast payback period with no electric bill, no gas/oil bill, all of our EV charge bill, and the electric company writing me checks every month.

125k with installation? Including all necessary street lines? Also what is the shelf life on the batteries?

[chris719]

Originally Posted by Obioban

Just no.

EPS in the F22 (and all bmws) is garbage, turbo engine dynamics are boring and annoying, and you get much less useable space in a similarly sized car in the F22 than e90 (meaningful because smaller cars always drive better, all else equal, but practical needs exist).

Somewhat disagree. I owned an E90 335i N54 ZSP, Z4M, and M2 Comp. The E90 328i loaners I would get for service were not good. The N52 engine is one of the least inspiring engines BMW has ever put in a passenger car - it's fine but not exciting at all and lacks torque. It just has very little character. The best non-M E9x engine was the turbo by a mile. The suspension harshness vs handling capability tradeoff in E90/E92 were also pretty bad, even if you ditched the RFTs.

I know what you mean about the turbos and the steering in some ways, but the regular E9x steering was already a step down from E46 and is faux-heavy. I find the M2 Comp steering to be overall as good as the regular E9x, but different. I can't comment about E92 M3 because I don't have enough time in one to judge it. Frankly, the Z4M destroys all of them in most categories, but you already knew that. I would definitely take an F22 M235i over an E90 328i or 330i. It might be a question against an N54 335i. The E82 135i N54 is what I would pick of that era anyway if we're talking non-M cars.

Engines I've driven, excluding the V8s:

S54 > S55 > B58 > N54 > N55 > N20 = N52

The manuals in all of them suck in different ways but the Z4M was the least bad. I suspect M2C will be best after installing an SSK and CDV delete.

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by x3sm

125k with installation? Including all necessary street lines? Also what is the shelf life on the batteries?

I'm not running any unusual lines from the street for this setup, so I did not include that in my solar/battery cost.

Yes, that price included install.

So, of that, the batteries are $7500 each (free install with solar roof), minus 26% tax rebate = $22,000.

Batteries are warrantied for 10 year, so that's their shortest possible life.

That is part of why I'm doing the charge when cheap, drain into grid when expensive thing, though-- batteries do age out, so they need to pay for themselves before then. At $8.60/day, I'm break even on the batteries in 7 years, so everything beyond that is gravy.

I expect them to be considerably cheaper by the time they need replacement:



I think it's also reasonable to compare the battery expense to a whole home generator, which never breaks even, requires service, requires fuel, and is annoying when running (though much less annoying then not having power)... and, in my experience, often doesn't actually turn on when needed.

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by chris719

Somewhat disagree. I owned an E90 335i N54 ZSP, Z4M, and M2 Comp. The E90 328i loaners I would get for service were not good. The N52 engine is one of the least inspiring engines BMW has ever put in a passenger car - it's fine but not exciting at all and lacks torque. It just has very little character. The best non-M E9x engine was the turbo by a mile. The suspension harshness vs handling capability tradeoff in E90/E92 were also pretty bad, even if you ditched the RFTs.

I know what you mean about the turbos and the steering in some ways, but the regular E9x steering was already a step down from E46 and is faux-heavy. I find the M2 Comp steering to be overall as good as the regular E9x, but different. I can't comment about E92 M3 because I don't have enough time in one to judge it. Frankly, the Z4M destroys all of them in most categories, but you already knew that. I would definitely take an F22 M235i over an E90 328i or 330i. It might be a question against an N54 335i. The E82 135i N54 is what I would pick of that era anyway if we're talking non-M cars.

Engines I've driven, excluding the V8s:

S54 > S55 > B58 > N54 > N55 > N20 = N52

The manuals in all of them suck in different ways but the Z4M was the least bad. I suspect M2C will be best after installing an SSK and CDV delete.

IMO the last car BMW made with a truly great driving experience potential was the 128i.

The N52 came in a lot of specs and chassis-- from 174hp to 268hp, and in chassis from 3050 to 4300 lbs. So, you can come away from it with a lot of varied experiences.

But, in the 128i in particular-- if you add BMW's 3 stage disa (from a higher trim N52), headers, and a tune, you're at 300 factory reliable NA BMW horsepower in a i6 that weights freaking 328 lbs. Almost 150 lbs ligher than an S54! I'd kill for that kind of weight off the nose of my M3!

Combine that engine with a properly optioned 128i, and you have a car that is 3050 lbs stock- and sub 3000 lbs with just runflat delete and light weight wheels.

Add M3 subframe bushings, so the body is actually connected to the suspension, and you have a great driving little car. More factory mods possible if you want more, beyond that-- all the M3 control arms are bolt on, as done on 1M.

128i steering is great as stock-- none of the fake heaviness stuff they did on the e9X.

135i is a 300+ lb penalty over 128i, and all the turbo engine dynamics I don't want.

But, yeah, put a low factory trim N52 (e.g. the 228hp one in the e9X 328i) into a heavy chassis (sadly the e9X is a fairly heavy chassis-- e60 is only 72 lbs heavier optioned like for like), and I could see why you came away not overly impressed.

The suspension harshness vs handling capability tradeoff in E90/E92 were also pretty bad, even if you ditched the RFTs.

This is the stock subframe bushings in the e9X non M. They just ruin the handling, especially once you ditch the RFTs that they're there to hide. Replacing them with M3 subframe bushings brings the entire chassis up the the level of non M BMWs before e9X.

The manuals in all of them suck in different ways but the Z4M was the least bad. I suspect M2C will be best after installing an SSK and CDV delete.

I suspect you'd like the N52 manual. Manuals from the same manufacturer generally have shift feel inverse to how much torque they're rated to handle. The Z4M was exceptionally good because they couldn't physically fit the 420g, with its higher torque rating, from the M3 (which was over rated, but does make it nigh indestructible, so... track offs)-- so they used the 330i manual instead. The N52 manuals are similarly low rated, and feel great as a result.

Engines I've driven, excluding the V8s:

S54 > S55 > B58 > N54 > N55 > N20 = N52

You should drive some more NA M engines