what type of suspension is on the e60 525i

On May 30, 3:59 pm, wrote:

> Yes we have some arseholes too and, by the way, Cadillacs are on sale over here
> at rock bottom prices. I could probably get a 2 or 3 year old one for about $8K
> Ok $12K but that's only because nobody wants them.
>
> The Chrysler 300C seems nice but has it REALLY got a HEMI under that hood?

You seem inordinately fascinated by big American Pigmobiles. I drive
a BMW. That said, a Cadillac CTS-V for that price would be a
bargain. It would also probably suck the headlights out of whatever
you drive.

No; the current 300C to which you're probably referring does not have
a REAL Hemi. But the original (1955) C300 did as did the later (1957)
300C.
--
C.R. Krieger
(Seen those Caddys racing)

On 31 May 2007 11:52:54 -0700, E28 Guy© > wrote:

>On May 30, 3:59 pm, wrote:
>
>> Yes we have some arseholes too and, by the way, Cadillacs are on sale over here
>> at rock bottom prices. I could probably get a 2 or 3 year old one for about $8K
>> Ok $12K but that's only because nobody wants them.
>>
>> The Chrysler 300C seems nice but has it REALLY got a HEMI under that hood?
>
>You seem inordinately fascinated by big American Pigmobiles. I drive
>a BMW. That said, a Cadillac CTS-V for that price would be a
>bargain. It would also probably suck the headlights out of whatever
>you drive.

Eh? 1997 BMW 740i & 2006 BMW 730d
>
>No; the current 300C to which you're probably referring does not have
>a REAL Hemi. But the original (1955) C300 did as did the later (1957)
>300C.

I know that and I know the 426 or rather 500CID is still available as a
replacement crated engine but couldn't believe they actually still put one in a
road vehicle.

> wrote
> E28 Guy© > wrote:
>>You seem inordinately fascinated by big American Pigmobiles. I drive
>>a BMW. That said, a Cadillac CTS-V for that price would be a
>>bargain. It would also probably suck the headlights out of whatever
>>you drive.
>
> Eh? 1997 BMW 740i & 2006 BMW 730d

<Floyd, chiming in>
Yes, a CTS-V will trash *any* BMW excepting an E60 M5. It is
essentially even in performance (of all kinds, not only straight-ahead
acceleration) to an E39 M5. And they cost less than either of your
cars.

>>No; the current 300C to which you're probably referring does not have
>>a REAL Hemi. But the original (1955) C300 did as did the later (1957)
>>300C.
>
> I know that and I know the 426 or rather 500CID is still available as a
> replacement crated engine but couldn't believe they actually still put one
> in a
> road vehicle.

Chrysler resurrected the Hemi name about 5 years ago, in a 5.7L V8,
and in a 6.1L V8. The only thing the current engines have in common
with the 360&426 engines are the Hemi name, SOHC pushrods, and
combustion chamber shape.

See, you continue to show that you know nothing about US cars,
even though you claim to have lived here.

"Floyd Rogers" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote
> > E28 Guy© > wrote:
> >>You seem inordinately fascinated by big American Pigmobiles. I drive
> >>a BMW. That said, a Cadillac CTS-V for that price would be a
> >>bargain. It would also probably suck the headlights out of whatever
> >>you drive.
> >
> > Eh? 1997 BMW 740i & 2006 BMW 730d
>
> <Floyd, chiming in>
> Yes, a CTS-V will trash *any* BMW excepting an E60 M5. It is
> essentially even in performance (of all kinds, not only straight-ahead
> acceleration) to an E39 M5. And they cost less than either of your
> cars.
>
> >>No; the current 300C to which you're probably referring does not have
> >>a REAL Hemi. But the original (1955) C300 did as did the later (1957)
> >>300C.
> >
> > I know that and I know the 426 or rather 500CID is still available as a
> > replacement crated engine but couldn't believe they actually still put
one
> > in a
> > road vehicle.
>
> Chrysler resurrected the Hemi name about 5 years ago, in a 5.7L V8,
> and in a 6.1L V8. The only thing the current engines have in common
> with the 360&426 engines are the Hemi name, SOHC pushrods, and
> combustion chamber shape.
>
> See, you continue to show that you know nothing about US cars,
> even though you claim to have lived here.
-----

Oh, DAMN!
Nothing personal, but let's see the residual value or quality of the CTS-V
after 20 years versus "ANY" BMW. Caddys are not what they used to be in
terms of build. They are "old folks cars" and usually "in my damn way" cars.
I have yet to run into any Caddy I can't dispense with, period. Hemi is
another reason the fuel prices are so high here, along with Americans
feeling the "I'll do it my way and screw you" attitudes. My wife's '98 528i
gets about 30mpg in town. What's any Hemi get? 17mpg tops? For the most
part, big engines are like big dicks... yeah, you got one, but where are you
gonna use it? The cars that are really ****-hot muscle are more for garage
duty. I like them, but they are very impractical and eat way too much gas
for the thrills you get. And if any American car manufacturer was worth its
salt, they would have changed their products and marketing long ago. See
Chrysler, Ford, GM and all the dead ones on the side of the road. They make
**** and design into it obsolescence. BMW ain't perfect, but then why is it
nearly always the benchmark?

Bill in Omaha
'86 535i

On Thu, 31 May 2007 15:07:32 -0700, "Floyd Rogers" >
wrote:

> wrote
>> E28 Guy© > wrote:
>>>You seem inordinately fascinated by big American Pigmobiles. I drive
>>>a BMW. That said, a Cadillac CTS-V for that price would be a
>>>bargain. It would also probably suck the headlights out of whatever
>>>you drive.
>>
>> Eh? 1997 BMW 740i & 2006 BMW 730d
>
><Floyd, chiming in>
>Yes, a CTS-V will trash *any* BMW excepting an E60 M5. It is
>essentially even in performance (of all kinds, not only straight-ahead
>acceleration) to an E39 M5. And they cost less than either of your
>cars.

What's this now - "Scrap heap challenge"
>
>>>No; the current 300C to which you're probably referring does not have
>>>a REAL Hemi. But the original (1955) C300 did as did the later (1957)
>>>300C.
>>
>> I know that and I know the 426 or rather 500CID is still available as a
>> replacement crated engine but couldn't believe they actually still put one
>> in a
>> road vehicle.
>
>Chrysler resurrected the Hemi name about 5 years ago, in a 5.7L V8,
>and in a 6.1L V8. The only thing the current engines have in common
>with the 360&426 engines are the Hemi name, SOHC pushrods, and
>combustion chamber shape.

SOHC ??????????

>
>See, you continue to show that you know nothing about US cars,
>even though you claim to have lived here.

Yes--------------- 1982 - 1987 but then the Buick Regal had a 90 deg crap V6
and you had the double nickel speed limit. The Caddy I had at that time was the
one with the 4, 6, 8, cyl firing system to save on fuel and gas was 50c gallon.
All US cars were massively over geared and @ 70 mph one could actually see the
fuel gauge (gage) move. Couldn't coax more than 75 out of that bus and the
caddy - well nice to ride in and fair to drive but no real mover!

>

Floyd Rogers wrote:

> Chrysler resurrected the Hemi name about 5 years ago, in a 5.7L V8,
> and in a 6.1L V8. The only thing the current engines have in common
> with the 360&426 engines are the Hemi name, SOHC pushrods, and
> combustion chamber shape.

Why would an engine have an overhead cam and push rods? Push rods were
used on engines that had the cam down in the block.

But I agree 100% that the Chrysler Corp has resurrected the "Hemi" name
purely for marketing.

--
-Fred W

In article >,
Fred W > wrote:
> > Chrysler resurrected the Hemi name about 5 years ago, in a 5.7L V8,
> > and in a 6.1L V8. The only thing the current engines have in common
> > with the 360&426 engines are the Hemi name, SOHC pushrods, and
> > combustion chamber shape.

> Why would an engine have an overhead cam and push rods? Push rods were
> used on engines that had the cam down in the block.

It's a way of operating non inline valves from a central overhead cam.
Pushrods can be lighter than long rocker arms. IIRC, the pre-war BMW 6
used this method.

--
Is the hardness of the butter proportional to the softness of the bread?*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Fred W" > wrote
> Floyd Rogers wrote:
>
>> Chrysler resurrected the Hemi name about 5 years ago, in a 5.7L V8,
>> and in a 6.1L V8. The only thing the current engines have in common
>> with the 360&426 engines are the Hemi name, SOHC pushrods, and
>> combustion chamber shape.
>
> Why would an engine have an overhead cam and push rods? Push rods were
> used on engines that had the cam down in the block.

I'm so used to overhead cams my brain just pre-pended SOHC to
the valve type. You've gotta love associative memory, even when
the association is incorrect.

FloydR

On May 31, 5:07 pm, "Floyd Rogers" > wrote:
> > wrote
>
> > E28 Guy© > wrote:
> >>You seem inordinately fascinated by big American Pigmobiles. I drive
> >>a BMW. That said, a Cadillac CTS-V for that price would be a
> >>bargain. It would also probably suck the headlights out of whatever
> >>you drive.
>
> > Eh? 1997 BMW 740i & 2006 BMW 730d
>
> <Floyd, chiming in>
> Yes, a CTS-V will trash *any* BMW excepting an E60 M5. It is
> essentially even in performance (of all kinds, not only straight-ahead
> acceleration) to an E39 M5. And they cost less than either of your
> cars.

Frighteningly, yes. I knew from the day I saw some preproduction
prototypes sitting at the local track - having recently returned from
testing at the Nurburgring (they left the stickers on one) that this
was One Bad Caddy. Andy Pilgrim and others have raced them quite
successfully in a couple of sedan series here.

Running radar on them at selected points during some of those races, I
know they were among the fastest cars on the track. As much as I
might like your 'short' E38 (and *not* the E45, or whatever your
diesel is), they are *no* match for a CTS-V in terms of speed and
handling.
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there; done that)