Ordering Non-standard 5 Series - BMW Forum

billB · 12-10-2004, 11:12 PM

I was told by a sales manager that the problem of ordering some nonstandard features is mainly due to the extra expenses associated with special orders. That may hold valid for something like nonstandard colors. Yes there is an extra effort requirement on their part-which justifies a no or two, knowing dealers don’t like to get stuck with a bright yellow 5 series on their lots.
But when it comes to wheels or seats for examples it gets hairy, and quite frankly I don’t understand the rational behind it, hence this post.
BMWNA is solid as their Bimmer in their position against ordering many things when/if it falls outside the realm of the pre-packed packages. It gets better when I know, in Germany for example, you can order your BMW with any one of many styles of 16”. Or 17” and 18” wheels. Also cloth seats are very possible choice.

I can't understand why BMWNA is against it? Why I can not order, for example, a sport suspension without sport seats or 18 inch wheels. Why someone can not find a cloth seats in Bimmer like the ones in Germany (Not that I like them) but I am puzzled by this preset casting system of pre packaged deals. Individual choices make more sense to me.

Next we ought to unravel the world of European BMW engine and compare it with ours. Are they more polluted in Europe? In a recent and excellent thread (Posted by ispet23 and championed by well respected members like Torque, BeelZ of England, and Jonathan Hess) they concluded their reviews of stronger European engines.

So where do we stand on all of this?

Torque · 12-10-2004, 11:28 PM

I am assuming BMWNA just doesn't want to go through the hassle (if you can call it that) of forwarding all your order options to BMW AG... which of course makes no sense; If I want cloth seats, sport suspension and 17 inch wheels and no sunroof they should do all they can to make it for me. Yes it will cost more, but if the customer is ready to pay...

Torque · 12-10-2004, 11:47 PM

As far as the engines, I really do not understand what the whole deal is. I am assuming that US pollution standards are higher than those of the European Union, and they are doing all they can to keep the pollution down by restricting the engines on OUR BMWs.... which again makes no sense because cars older than '84 do not even have to be tested. Big commercial trucks are also not tested, and I assure you that every time that big diesel truck moves it emits more pollutants than my car does in a month !

Johnathan_Hess · 12-11-2004, 12:32 AM

America's just weird, man. We don't get all the cool imports.

The M5 in Europe for the E34 put out a whooping 60 more horsepower than the 540i here -- with a smaller engine at 3.8 litres.

The 240SX in Japan -- I forget exactly what it is over there -- comes with a whooping 70 more horsepower than the 240SX here -- with a smaller engine at 2.0 litres compared to 2.4.

My old man's been around the Middle East, and they sell the Caprice SS there -- a car never sold here in America, even though GM is domestic.

I don't get it, man.

We got it backwards.

billB · 12-11-2004, 01:28 AM

The BMW 530d does the 0-60mph in 7 seconds. Not bad for a diesel engine! and you can get over 40 miles per gallon. Less fuel to burn and less money to spend. The 530 Gasoline engine sibling is still trying to get 23 miles per gallon! But we don't pay $6 for a gallon of gas.

Johnathan_Hess · 12-11-2004, 02:36 AM

I'm telling you, man... the 5-series just need a better differential for a big improvement in the 0-60 department.

Torque · 12-11-2004, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Johnathan_Hess@Dec 11 2004, 03:36 AM
I'm telling you, man... the 5-series just need a better differential for a big improvement in the 0-60 department.

[snapback]247836[/snapback]

If you do that, you are losing out on the top end... and the fuel economy - still not the perfect solution. Solution is power ... and we are not getting it.

Johnathan_Hess · 12-11-2004, 10:47 AM

You're losing out on theoretical top end. What's more common in your driving habits, Torque? Accelerating from a stop, or going 155 miles an hour?

I think the sacrifice is well worth it.

Granted, your fuel economy does slip, but that's to be expected whenever you want to get more "oomph" out of your car.

billB · 12-11-2004, 11:48 PM

Autobahn driving is one thing (cruising speed is 160, but here? I am not so sure:
A. Our speed is electronically limited to 155 mph threshold, and if you try to test it on NJ highways, I guarantee you a sheriff deputy will be knocking on the door of your last DMV reported address.
B. Yes your fuel economy will suffer possibly by about 1-3 MPG.
C. With a differential upgrade? I think installing a performance chip and exhaust to increase upper RPM power is essential.

Johnathan_Hess · 12-12-2004, 04:14 AM

Exhaust isn't essential with the upgraded differential.

And a chip is a no-brainer.

billB · 12-12-2004, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Johnathan_Hess@Dec 12 2004, 10:14 AM
Exhaust isn't essential with the upgraded differential.

And a chip is a no-brainer.

[snapback]248446[/snapback]

OK Janathan, to summarize our discussion and keep it in a proper perspective this what we have so far:

A. More power per Torque.
B. Differential upgrade ONLY per Jonathan
C. A combination of B, chip and exhaust per Billb.

Fair? Anything else? Anyone? My next reply will do the math for further discussion!

Johnathan_Hess · 12-12-2004, 02:47 PM

I'm just saying a differential would be the biggest, noticable gain in terms of 0-60 acceleration.

Dinan suggests a 3.15 from a 2.89, but I think a 3.64 would be more appropriate. But if you want to go crazy, go ahead and throw in a 4.10.

billB · 12-12-2004, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Johnathan_Hess@Dec 12 2004, 08:47 PM
I'm just saying a differential would be the biggest, noticable gain in terms of 0-60 acceleration.

Dinan suggests a 3.15 from a 2.89, but I think a 3.64 would be more appropriate. But if you want to go crazy, go ahead and throw in a 4.10.

[snapback]248612[/snapback]

I do agree with you 101% but it does not hurt to explore this issue in more details. This is by no means a challenge to anyone but rather a collective effort by all members. Later.

Johnathan_Hess · 12-12-2004, 10:54 PM

Pros: Better acceleration.

Cons: Lower theoretical top-end (how often do you do you go 155 mph?)
Worse fuel economy

billB · 12-13-2004, 08:55 PM

Better acceleration vs. Lower theoretical top-end and bad fuel economy explained.

What is the theoretical top speed?
It is the max. RPM divided by peak gear ratio of your tranny, divided by your final drive ratio (differential). All this will= your wheel rotations per a time unit.
Can it be reached in our BMWs?
I am not so sure for two reasons: A. As I mentioned earlier we are blessed with these electronic gadgets to limit our speed and B. Don’t forget the laws of nature and the whole subject in 101 college classes in aerodynamics but shorter ratios do enhance BMWs shifting points; this partly explains how BMW get away with using similar 6 speed manuals coupled with individual ratios.
When Dinan suggests a ratio of 3.15 from 2.89 and Jonathan prefers to go with 3.64 ratios. What we talking about here is taking the 2.89 in Jonathan’s example above and subtract it from 2.89 the difference is 0.26; now divide 0.26 by 2.89 = 0.089 X 100 = 8.9. This is the percentage change in Dinan and /or Jonathan’s example. Fair? In fact BMW did just that back in 1999 with its 540 6 speeders when they changed their ratio from 2.82 or 2.83 (don’t quote me) to 3.15 and yes they continued using the same ratio in their mighty 3700 plus pounder M5. It was a brilliant engineering move to correct gears but such a move took the Bimmer away from its natural habitat of autobahns. Welcome to the new world of speed limits!