opinions ? 1999 328

wrote:

>I'm considering a 1999 328i with a little over 100K on the odometer.
>The car looked, drove and felt like a dream. Appeared very well
>maintained.
>
>Any opinions on this model/year ?
>I'm a bit shy about buying given the reputation of high repair cost
>and would like a few exper opinions..

It may be due for new O2 sensors, which is like $1000, and you should
probably change ALL fluids. As others have said the bushings in front
are a wear item as well, but have probably already been done once on a
99...

Scott Dorsey wrote:

>Over the years BMW has gone from door switches in series with the dome
>light so that the dome light comes on when the door is open... to a
>transistorized module with solder joints that commonly fail in order to
>turn the light out after a timed period... to a microprocessor box that
>does nothing but turn the lights on and off and may require firmware
>updates. From the standpoint of reliability and maintainability, this is
>not an improvement,

Says who? I say you're wrong. (Braces for the fact-free "What, are
you nuts? It's common sense!" tirade...)

There's zero reason why automotive electronics cannot out-last the
rest of the car. IME, old cars with crude electrics, breaker-points,
etc, had FAR more problems than do newer cars.

"Alan B. Mac Farlane" > wrote in message
...
> in article , tom_k at
> wrote on 11/21/08 9:32 AM:
>
>> What, exactly were the differences between the 1999 and 2000 328i sedans?
>> They are both E46 series!
>>
>> Tom K.
>
>
> Hi Tom ... just to name few ...
>
> better computer, better cruise control, better aerodynamics, better fuel
> mileage, better diagnositics, better maintence ... for the 2000 plus
> models
> over the 1990 or the 1980 or the 1970 series for example.
>

Alan, we're not comparing the 2000 with 1990, the issue is 2000 and 1999 -
and the 328i models from those two years are virtually identical. They have
the same cruise control, aerodynamics, fuel mileage, diagnositics (sic),
etc. - they are both E46.

Tom K.

dizzy > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>>Over the years BMW has gone from door switches in series with the dome
>>light so that the dome light comes on when the door is open... to a
>>transistorized module with solder joints that commonly fail in order to
>>turn the light out after a timed period... to a microprocessor box that
>>does nothing but turn the lights on and off and may require firmware
>>updates. From the standpoint of reliability and maintainability, this is
>>not an improvement,
>
>Says who? I say you're wrong. (Braces for the fact-free "What, are
>you nuts? It's common sense!" tirade...)

Well, you can look at the questions asked in this group, an awful lot
of which have to do with electrical system flakiness. You could look
at the Consumer's Reports surveys; these aren't always representative
and they tend to overrepresent disgruntled purchasers, but they do show
an awfully high proportion of electronics issues on late-model BMW
and Mercedes cars.

>There's zero reason why automotive electronics cannot out-last the
>rest of the car. IME, old cars with crude electrics, breaker-points,
>etc, had FAR more problems than do newer cars.

They had different kinds of problems. As I said earlier, the engine
control systems have improved immensely, and it's the accessory stuff
that has become a problem.

And there is one reason why they can't out-last the rest of the car:
because customers want fancy gewgaws but they don't want to pay the
money to have them built to a high standard of reliability. As complexity
increases, the cost to do it right increases even faster.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> JB > wrote:
>> > Why does anyone WANT all the new technology? Sheesh, I want a car that
>> > drives well, not a freaking computer network on wheels that nobody can
>> > do
>> > basic maintenance on outside of the dealership.
>
>> *Ding*. Why do you think I still have my E36? The E46/E39 are to me at
>> least, the first of the 'non-user-serviceable' BMWs (by that I mean the
>> mandatory use of expensive diagnostic eqpt and throw-away/non-repairable
>> parts). As such I'll stick with the older tech thanks very much.
>
> Which parts on an E39 are non repairable where they were on say an E34?
>
I should have said non _home_ user serviceable. I successfully recon'd the
alternator on my old E34. You can't even get the one on the E39 I looked at
apart! getting spares for the auto box on a colleague's E39 540 was futile.
We eventually got him a used box from a breakers in the end. I've rebuilt 3
of the older ZF autos on E34s as you can actually get the spares.
For the record, if you ever get transmission hassles, speak to TES
Transmissions in westbury, Wilts. Superb service and very, very
knowledgeable.

JB

in article , dizzy at
lid wrote on 11/21/08 6:13 PM:

> What a load of crap! The 99 and 00 sedans are the same freaking
> thing, you moron.


fine with me ... you win !!!

me not gonna buy a 1990 series vehicle on the last day ... you go ahead.

in article , tom_k at
wrote on 11/22/08 8:28 AM:

> Alan, we're not comparing the 2000 with 1990, the issue is 2000 and 1999 -
> and the 328i models from those two years are virtually identical. They have
> the same cruise control, aerodynamics, fuel mileage, diagnositics (sic),
> etc. - they are both E46.
>
> Tom K.


you win also Tom ... me not gonna fight.

the guyu wants to buy it ... go ahead I say and upgrade from what he has
already.

just get new tires, new brakes, and new O2 sensor ... out the door;
including tax and license so there is some kind of good chance for him to go
50K miles with just gas/oil maintenance for his thousands of dollars.

sumbuddie happy today ...