That's my point. The Monte Carlo would be a far more reliable and easy-to-maintain car compared to the old Bimmer. --- Post updated --- You might be not caught dead, but at least in the Lumina/Monte you wouldn't be caught broken down on the side of the road.
Here's my analysis. I'm probably very wrong on this. I'm going to say "probably" a lot here, so take it with a pinch of salt. Chevrolet Lumina/Monte Carlo Pros: Cheaper insurance cost Cheaper price Probably easier to find parts for it than the BMW It would probably use less gas than the BMW Cons: Probably not as reliable as the BMW Probably weaker than the BMW in the instance of an accident The interior is not as luxurious as the BMW BMW 3-Series Pros: It's German, so most likely it'll be more reliable Probably stronger than the Chevrolet in the instance of an accident The interior is more luxurious Cons: Higher insurance cost Higher price Likely harder to find parts for it than the Chevrolet It would probably use more gas than the Chevrolet If it was me, I'd go with the BMW.
So he would be caught dead with vultures picking at him on the side of a desert road For the Lumina/Monte Carlo Yep Maybe Maybe and both get basically the same brand new Probably not Have you seen how big they are For the BMW It's 90's German The BMW is a pretty small car well a small car in America Yep Definitely Maybe Maybe Maybe
I can say with absolute certainty that this isn't true. High performance cars, especially German and English ones, also mean high maintenance. I've seen countless ones with blown headgaskets, bad cooling fans, and dead computers. It might be fun to drive but it'll nickel and dime you to death with engine maladies.
I was thinking that over time, one would end up using less gas than the other, due to aging. Then again, my understanding of MPG is rusty. So you're saying that it's a high performance car? Also, I always hear great things about German cars, so I assume that makes their craftsmanship more superior than that of an American car. Same being said for Japanese cars.
The thing about German cars is, they tend to be extremely sensitive. They are extremely well engineered, but the downside to that is that they are much like the Northstar Engine. They are great when everything is working according to plan, but all it takes is something little to throw the entire system out of wack. They are very reliant on both computers and everything running perfectly. Old German cars like the Air cooled VW Beetle will run forever because they are so simple. Modern German cars come very, very close to being over-engineered. However, another thing that compounds this is that when a German car breaks, they are expensive to fix because they are so complex. There is a reason why mechanics joke about "assuming the position" when it comes to German cars.: https://www.reddit.com/r/Justrolledintotheshop/comments/6iei3t/assume_the_audi_position/ The 3.8 in the Chevy may run like crap, but so long as you put oil and coolant in it, it'll run like crap forever. If something breaks, it doesn't require tearing the entire front end apart just to fix something. The thing about Japanese cars is that they just keep going. Older Hondas and Toyotas (and Nissan Sentras and Maximas) often come into the auction I work at with no oil, no coolant, or overheating through the roof - but they keep on going. They aren't built to be super complex, high performance machines - they are built to be commuters that get from one place to another. However, not all Japanese cars are invincible. I've never seen a Mitsubishi come in with over 130,000 miles. Subarus are a bit weird, they break often and a lot... but the most reliable thing about them are their owners. Their owners will always fix their car.
1st of all: how could a 3.8l engine produce 200hp? What kind of engineers looked at foreign cars then and thought this is competitive? I highly doubt it gets that kind mileage, at least not in a European city. Either way I can't really tell since I haven't even seen a Lumina in real life. Ever. While e36s are everywhere here, so why did europeans chose the 3 series? Lets see. Everyone seems to jump on the bandwagon and say how unreliable bmws are. Actually the e36 is one of the most robust bmws and especially the inline 6s can take a lot of beating. Still the dependability of a 20 year old car depends more on the way it had been treated during that time. Idk about you guys in the USA but in Europe parts for e36s are plentiful and cheap. I'd definitely pick the bmw as it's rwd, looks better, easier to maintain in Europe, a wide range of gasoline, diesel engines & transmissions (not just an anemic v6 mated to a pathetic shlushmatic), and it was actually a premium car back at the day, not an econobox made by a desperate manufacturer trying to compete against the japanese and failing badly.
I see you know your stuff. Very interesting info there. Also, last I heard, Subaru was one of the most highly rated cars, so I find what you said there very ironic. I see we're somewhat on the same page about BMWs. I would guess they're more reliable than others because of what I said earlier, the German engineering that goes into them, and I always hear people saying how great they are, and why you should consider something German over something American. In the end, we all have varying opinions.
I'd have an E36, but as a track car. As for a daily, I'd have the Monte Carlo because it's easier to find parts for it in the States.
The Monte Carlo, being a 1990s GM product, is likely to be completely indestructable (took some truly next-level stupidity to break my 1990s GM product), and it should be an easy 3.8 SC swap candidate, BUT no manual and those are known to handle like an exaggerated caricature of bad FWD handling - hideous understeer right up until you do something to upset them, at which point they try to kill you. The BMW is likely to be significantly less reliable, significantly less sturdy, and more expensive to fix, BUT RWD means a more dogmatically pure driving experience, especially as the E36 is known to be a well-balanced and fun-to-drive car. Furthermore, all engines were available with manual transmission as far as I know.
The 3.8 V6 came from the factory with an optional supercharger. Without the supercharger, the 3.8 rolls 200HP at the crank and with the (rather pitiful imo) supercharger it pushes "240HP" which probably isn't true because GM was hesitant on how the cooling system would hold up. However, the internals of the 3.8 are extremely well constructed and the engine itself can easily withhold 300HP before having to do anything to the heads (and maybe internals like bearings or rods.) The only downfall with that kind of power is that the trannies would likely need some beefing as well if you're going to run them hard.
I guess nobody would want 300hp in a fwd car made in the 80s anyway. Undoubtedly the bmw is more of a performer, a 318is would have a much much better handling because it doesn't have a big heavy engine in front of the wheels and it isn't fwd to keep development costs down. As for potential, turbocharging a 318is is quite common reaching power of about 300hp on stock internals, since it has forged pistons out of the factory. The Lumina i reckon would be more comfy and boat-y. As much as I think about these cars, the more different I find them from each other. I don't think there is point in even comparing them.
I just want the car that isn’t a Chevy. I really don’t care what it is as long as it isn’t General Motors. Modern General Motors, anyway. Pre-70s GM is okay, but I still like Fords of that era better.
I actually didn't know this. Lumina's Overall rating with "Good" while the Bimmer's got 1 and a half stars from Euro NCAP. BMW's A pillar gave way in the crash, Luminas did as well, but to a significantly lesser degree.
