Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / BMW Cars / March 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

M3 SMG BOXs

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
russell_a_smith - 27 Mar 2005 11:18 GMT
I here that  the semi auto boxes on M3 BMW's have been responciable for
damaged engines, and Ive been advise to give SMG equiped cars a wide birth .
(Im told its the launch control on the box that does the damage)
Is this true about the boxes as the values of these cars are comparable
fbloogyudsr - 27 Mar 2005 13:02 GMT
>I here that  the semi auto boxes on M3 BMW's have been responciable for
> damaged engines, and Ive been advise to give SMG equiped cars a wide birth
> . (Im told its the launch control on the box that does the damage)
> Is this true about the boxes as the values of these cars are comparable

The SMG transmissions are not the problem.  The engines are the problem.

Floyd
russell_a_smith - 27 Mar 2005 17:52 GMT
I take it that a M3 might not be the best second hand buy, would I be better
going for a 330 ci?
>>I here that  the semi auto boxes on M3 BMW's have been responciable for
>> damaged engines, and Ive been advise to give SMG equiped cars a wide
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Floyd
GRL - 27 Mar 2005 23:44 GMT
Problem with an M3 as a used car buy is that they are the type of car that
attracts drivers who like to flog the thing (it begs to be flogged) and that
does not make for longevity.

I would not buy one that did not have at least two years of warranty left
and whose previous owner I did not know and trust.

- GRL

>I take it that a M3 might not be the best second hand buy, would I be
>better going for a 330 ci?
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>>
>> Floyd
Dave Plowman (News) - 28 Mar 2005 00:16 GMT
> I would not buy one that did not have at least two years of warranty
> left and whose previous owner I did not know and trust.

How often can you buy a one year old car from someone you know and trust?
And I'd also think that those who change to a new car every year would be
mad to look after it well...

Signature

*Why is it that doctors call what they do "practice"?

   Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                 To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Harry - 28 Mar 2005 00:52 GMT
>> I would not buy one that did not have at least two years of warranty
>> left and whose previous owner I did not know and trust.
>
> How often can you buy a one year old car from someone you know and trust?
> And I'd also think that those who change to a new car every year would be
> mad to look after it well...

BINGO - he just can't afford one.
+ Rob + - 28 Mar 2005 09:55 GMT
> > I would not buy one that did not have at least two years of warranty
> > left and whose previous owner I did not know and trust.
>
> How often can you buy a one year old car from someone you know and trust?
> And I'd also think that those who change to a new car every year would be
> mad to look after it well...

   Who said the car being considered is only one year old? Certainly not
the OP.
   That said, I wouldn't buy ANY one year old used car. Because the vast
majority of units returning to the retail channel that soon are thrashed
rental returns and lemons.

Rob
Dave Plowman (News) - 28 Mar 2005 10:18 GMT
> > > I would not buy one that did not have at least two years of warranty
> > > left and whose previous owner I did not know and trust.

> > How often can you buy a one year old car from someone you know and
> > trust? And I'd also think that those who change to a new car every
> > year would be mad to look after it well...

>     Who said the car being considered is only one year old? Certainly
> not the OP.

He wants two years of warranty left? I assume that means a one year old
car, as you can buy a warranty - of a sort - for near any car.

> That said, I wouldn't buy ANY one year old used car. Because
> the vast majority of units returning to the retail channel that soon are
> thrashed rental returns and lemons.

Yup. With an M3, possibly a rich kid that must have a new one every year?
And thrashes it to death from day one?

Signature

*Welcome to sh.t Creek - sorry, we're out of paddles*

   Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                 To e-mail, change noise into sound.

fbloogyudsr - 28 Mar 2005 16:07 GMT
"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote
>> > > I would not buy one that did not have at least two years of warranty
>> > > left and whose previous owner I did not know and trust.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> He wants two years of warranty left? I assume that means a one year old
> car, as you can buy a warranty - of a sort - for near any car.

Don't forget, BMWs in the US get 48K/4years, so your assumption
is invalid over here (and in CA, too, IIRC.)

Floyd
John Stone - 28 Mar 2005 12:36 GMT
On 3/27/05 4:44 PM, in article LHG1e.18459$3e6.7435@fe03.lga, "GRL"
<GLitwinski@CHARTERMI.NET> wrote:

> Problem with an M3 as a used car buy is that they are the type of car that
> attracts drivers who like to flog the thing (it begs to be flogged) and that
> does not make for longevity.
>
> I would not buy one that did not have at least two years of warranty left
> and whose previous owner I did not know and trust.

I'm not sure M3's are flogged any more than any other sporty car, regular
BMW's included.  Constant flogging of an M3 on the street is going to get
you into legal troubles very quickly. And the car's driveline and brakes are
quite robust.  Of course this doesn't include cars that spend a lot of time
at the track, but a mechanic would uncover a beat up car pretty quickly.
Why wouldn't any 330i/ci w/manual and sport package be just as prone?
John Stone - 28 Mar 2005 12:19 GMT
On 3/27/05 4:18 AM, in article hMv1e.6150$Ab.555@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk,

> I here that  the semi auto boxes on M3 BMW's have been responciable for
> damaged engines, and Ive been advise to give SMG equiped cars a wide birth .
> (Im told its the launch control on the box that does the damage)
> Is this true about the boxes as the values of these cars are comparable

The SMG boxes are not responsible for engine damage. In fact, the SMG will
not let you over rev due to downshift to a wrong gear, like a standard
manual tranny would. There were engine problems, mostly in 01's, with a
production wide recall through mid 03 to replace rod bearings. The problem
appears solved. The SMG's are complex and have their own issues.
fbloogyudsr - 28 Mar 2005 16:19 GMT
> "russell_a_smith" <russell_a_smith@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I here that  the semi auto boxes on M3 BMW's have been responciable for
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> production wide recall through mid 03 to replace rod bearings. The problem
> appears solved. The SMG's are complex and have their own issues.

There were two separate recalls IIRC.  One for rod bearings, and one
for oil/oil pump.  They also updated the engine controller program.
I believe that they also extended the engine warranty to 100K miles.
http://www.mbmw.com/e46_m3_engine_failure.htm

Floyd
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.