Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
> At least in Germany seeing lots of BMWs and Mercs is no illusion! They are
> top sellers:
> http://www.kfz-auskunft.de/kfz/pkw_n...ngen_2003.html

Yes, I know about Germany. Germans know what to drive and how to make
it.

But I don't believe the OP was in Germany.

I wonder, what are the top selling cars in England? Do you know a site
with stats?

The top selling cars in Holland in 2003 were:
1. Opel (55.698 nieuwe exepmplaren)
2. Peugeot (52.412 exemplaren)
3. Renault (47.159 nieuwe auto's)
4. Ford (42.146 nieuwe auto's)
5. Volkswagen (40.390 exemplaren)

Unfortunately, the list ends here.

http://www.planet.nl/planet/show/id=...8393/sc=24bcc0

>
> In the Netherlands I seem to see Mercs on every corner...
>
Do you count taxi cabs? That's not fair

I'll make a short drive around my neighborhood, just for fun,
and count the Mercs and BMWs I see. I'll post the results
tomorrow or the day after. I'll also post the number of corners,
and then we'll know.

Peter

 

"JP Roberts" <1234@yahoo.com> wrote
> > Z rated tires for any of these cars cost the same amount of money and
are
> > available at reasonable prices. Tires for BMWs are no more expensive.
>
> But you will need to replace the rear ones much more often, if you enjoy
> spirited driving on winding roads, that is. We all know it is winding
roads
> that are good fun.

And the front-driver SAABs (and Audis, for that matter) will have to
have their front tires replaced more often than their rears. Even.

> I have a set of fully dedicated winter Vredesteins to be able to enjoy my
> quattro in the winter, and a set of Sport Contact 2 that my car is already
> "wearing" now.

And I have a set of Michelin Pilot Alpines for my 330xi for winter.
A guy in an S4, parked next to me last winter, said he almost didn't
make it up the ski hill's road. I said: "get rid of the PZeros."

Floyd

 

I dont know why people keep insisting that BMW is bad in winter. IT IS
NOT! with the proper winter tires it handles superbly. Again, I live in
Montreal and I have an old 5 series and i dont have any problems. The
newer models have all these sofisticated systems that make it even a
safer ride. I also dont think changin tires is as expensive as you
claim. I bought a set of winter tires 3 years ago and a set of
performance tires also 3 years ago and both look like the can handle at
least 3 more years. I dont know how much your quattro option cost you as
compared to non-quattro (i have never seen one here!)
Imad
JP Roberts wrote:

>>>I think it is precisely BMW that produce the most efficient petrol
>>>
>>>
>engines
>
>
>>>available, given similar power figures. Turbos could arguably be driven
>>>
>>>
>>more
>>
>>
>>>efficiently at low speeds, but then again, this is not so clear an
>>>
>>>
>>argument
>>
>>
>>>under normal driving conditions. And everyone knows a nice torquey
>>>6-cylinder or bigger engine is always preferable to a turbo engine,
>>>
>>>
>>because
>>
>>
>>>of the inherent turbo lag and poor low-end performance. The problem with
>>>most BMWs is they are useless in bad weather and if you want to have fun
>>>
>>>
>>on
>>
>>
>>>the dry you may want to spend big bucks on visiting the tyre shop as
>>>
>>>
>often
>
>
>>>as the filling station. This is why I am an Audi driver.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>SAAB 4 cylinder turbo engines are far more fuel efficient that a BMW 6 of
>>similar displacement.
>>
>>
>
>If you compare equal power engine and you thrash the engine, the BMW will
>always give you better mileage, so obviously you know nothing about BMW
>engines.
>
>
>
>>The SAAB (when fitted with a full pressure turbo) also has more peak HP
>>
>>
>and
>
>
>>torque than the BMW.
>>
>>
>
>And huge lag and less driveability and the BMW would still beat the SAAB on
>acceleration, which is what counts. Peak HP won't drive you anywhere.
>
>
>
>
>>Turbo lag is minimized in the SAAB ecopower designs as compared to most
>>other turbocharged engines. Ecopower engines are designed specifically to
>>provide best performace at relatively low rpms.
>>SAAB low pressure turbo engines, which make somewhat lower hp and torque
>>than the BMW six have *no* detectable turbolag.
>>
>>
>
>Audi's 1.8T should not have any detectable turbo lag but I can spot that
>easily, now I can't think Saab turbos can be very different.
>
>
>
>>All BMW 6 cylinder engines (with the exception of the old ETA 2.7) are all
>>designed to spin to much higher rpms to make their power.
>>
>>
>
>And their torque is way much linear, which makes them better all round.
>Their smoothness alone qualifies.
>
>
>
>>BMWs handle superbly in snow (when outfitted with proper snow tires) due
>>
>>
>to
>
>
>>their optimum 50/50 weight distribution and rear wheel drive.
>>
>>
>
>Your definition of handling superbly does not tally with the fact when I go
>skiing I can often find BMW drivers stranded or looking for their chains.
>I've driven RWD and can tell you again it's pretty close to useless in
>really bad weather. Think of slopes uphill. The proper tyres will give you
>more fun under very specific hyper-controlled conditions but can't do much
>in real life winter driving on icy roads.
>
>
>
>>BMWs by and large handle better than either Audi's or SAABs in dry
>>conditions.
>>
>>
>
>Quite probably true, except for the by and large.
>
>
>
>>Z rated tires for any of these cars cost the same amount of money and are
>>available at reasonable prices. Tires for BMWs are no more expensive.
>>
>>
>
>But you will need to replace the rear ones much more often, if you enjoy
>spirited driving on winding roads, that is. We all know it is winding roads
>that are good fun.
>
>
>
>>Apparently, you made your automobile choice by listening to other people's
>>hype about SAAB's horrible turbo lag and BMW's rear wheel drive being bad
>>
>>
>in
>
>
>>snow. Too bad for you. You probably have a single set of all-season
>>radials on your Audi Quattro and think that you have the ultimate all
>>weather machine.
>>
>>
>
>I have a set of fully dedicated winter Vredesteins to be able to enjoy my
>quattro in the winter, and a set of Sport Contact 2 that my car is already
>"wearing" now.
>
>
>
>>I personally would rather have a BMW with a nice set of low profile wheels
>>and Z rated summer tires and second set of wheels and winter snow tires.
>>
>>
>My
>
>
>>second set of wheels and tires would cost what, $600? vs. buying an AWD
>>
>>
>car
>
>
>>and being crippled in handling for 95% of the year? I can take my snow
>>tires off in the summer. Can you take off your AWD hardware?
>>
>>
>
>At the end of your BMW life you will probably have spent more money on tyres
>for your BMW than I will have on my Quattro gear. The difference is you'll
>have left your BMW parked when there was snow on the road, while I'll have
>been driving my Quattro all year round.
>
>JP Roberts
>
>
>
>

 

In article <10a1l4fd1bk556b@corp.supernews.com>,
fbloogyudsr <fbloogyudsr@nwlink.com> wrote:

> And the front-driver SAABs (and Audis, for that matter) will have to
> have their front tires replaced more often than their rears. Even.

I replace the front and rear tires on my Saab 9-5 at the same time.
You have to apply some form of wear management so the front and rear
tires wear close to the same rate.

--
Göran Larsson http://www.mitt-eget.com/saab/

 

Imad Al-Ghouleh schrieb:

>I dont know why people keep insisting that BMW is bad in winter.

Because it is. Especially compared to a FWD saab or a quattro Audi.


BTDT.

The rearwheel drive is fun and with all the electronic gimmicks it
will really do it's job. However at a certain climb angle or even
slipperyness of the road, the rearwheel drive gives in, then the FWD
and then the quattro.

>IT IS
>NOT! with the proper winter tires it handles superbly.

Fair enough. In my experience, handling is one thing. In dry
conditions I couldnt argue which is better on the edge of friction as
I haven't driven all drive concepts in this condition. Maybe I should
make it clear that IMO the risk of getting stuck with a rearwheel
drive is higher than with a FWD or quattro.

>Again, I live in
>Montreal and I have an old 5 series and i dont have any problems.

Ok, so I live in Austria, we also have quite a bit of snow and it's
always the RWD vehicles that get stuck first.

>least 3 more years. I dont know how much your quattro option cost you as
>compared to non-quattro (i have never seen one here!)

You are comparing apples and oranges. Using the same high quality
winter tires FWD's do get you further and quattro even more so.

Regards

Wolfgang
--
* Audi A6 Avant TDI *
* reply to wolfgang dot pawlinetz at chello dot at *

 

fbloogyudsr schrieb:

>A guy in an S4, parked next to me last winter, said he almost didn't
>make it up the ski hill's road. I said: "get rid of the PZeros."

Good advice. Quattro does not negate the laws of physics. Friction
still counts

>Floyd

Regards

Wolfgang
--
* Audi A6 Avant TDI *
* reply to wolfgang dot pawlinetz at chello dot at *

 

On Tue, 11 May 2004 14:47:54 GMT, Goran Larsson <hoh@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> In article <10a1l4fd1bk556b@corp.supernews.com>,
> fbloogyudsr <fbloogyudsr@nwlink.com> wrote:
>
>> And the front-driver SAABs (and Audis, for that matter) will have to
>> have their front tires replaced more often than their rears. Even.
>
> I replace the front and rear tires on my Saab 9-5 at the same time.
> You have to apply some form of wear management so the front and rear
> tires wear close to the same rate.

I switch between winter tires and summer tires when appropriate, and
what was on the front last year, goes to the back this year. They're
all directional, so that's as much tire rotation as is possible, but
you're right, it makes the sets ready for replacement all at once.

All cars wear tires, and unless something is drastically wrong, it's
not going to differentiate between manufacturers.

Dave Hinz

 

"Wolfgang Pawlinetz" <w.pawlinetz@a1.net> wrote in message
news:5qp1a0teb17een67eish24ov5r9hq33j41@4ax.com...
> Imad Al-Ghouleh schrieb:
>
> >I dont know why people keep insisting that BMW is bad in winter.
>
> Because it is. Especially compared to a FWD saab or a quattro Audi.
>
>
> BTDT.
>
> The rearwheel drive is fun and with all the electronic gimmicks it
> will really do it's job. However at a certain climb angle or even
> slipperyness of the road, the rearwheel drive gives in, then the FWD
> and then the quattro.
>

Sorry, no. This is contrary to the laws of physics. If you assume equal
axle weights, as the car climbs it places more weight over the rear axle and
less over the front. So a rear wheel drive car would have an advantage over
a FWD in climbing. Obviously, an AWD car with the same weight and tires
would be better than either.

I have never found a FWD car is better than a RWD car in the snow in
general. The reason people think that is because at the point that they
*do* lose traction (and they all will eventually), it is easier for the
inexperienced troglodyte driver to control the FWD's inherent front end
plowing understeer than the RWD, which can be made to either under or over
steer with judicious input on the fun pedal.

-Fred W

 

"Dori A Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:40a0c5f7$1$20509$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> At least in Germany seeing lots of BMWs and Mercs is no illusion! They
are
> top sellers:
> http://www.kfz-auskunft.de/kfz/pkw_n...ngen_2003.html
>
> In the Netherlands I seem to see Mercs on every corner...
>

They sell more, and these are the cars that last for 300k miles or more,
while the Opels, Fords and VW's are in the scrap heap.

-Fred W

 

For an anecdotal data
> point, I have a 1999 Saab 9-5, which has been in exactly twice for
> other than "normal wear items" (tires, spark plugs, belts), and those
> two times were the 30,000 and 60,000 mile checkups. It's at 80,000
> now and drives like new. I'd buy one again, and in fact this replaced
> a 1988 Saab that I had 247,000 miles on when I traded it in.
>
I owned an early SAAB 900 Turbo and it was without a doubt the most
troublesome car I've ever owned. Let's take a look:
--front calipers with integral emergency brakes cost a bundle and rot
in a few years (40K)
--front seat springs (actually rubber straps) snap due to seat heaters
(50K)
--transmission (60K)
--key breaks off in switch on floor (60K, middle of January)
--head liner falls down (65K)
--fuel gauge breaks (50K)
--brake master cylinder (55K)
--fuel smell all the time (>40K)
--cracked head (80K)
--another transmission (90K)
--turbo (90K)
--clutch slave and master cylinders (60K)
--sunroof leaks
--door seals fail
--anything plastic starts to crumble

I used synthetic oil every 3000 miles so the engine ran great. The
maintenance just cost too much to keep. I bought a VW and relaxed on
the weekends.

Matthew
00 BMW 528i (best overall car so far)