BMW 128i and 135i

.insane · Post by **.insane** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 10:17 pm

When i went to talk to the dealer he said that it was going to be around 30k meant to compete with the new tsx coming out in spring with the I-6 TT and sh-AWD so i dont know how much it costs but the salesman i talked to said around 30-31k

papercliprebel · Post by **papercliprebel** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 12:18 pm

.insane wrote:When i went to talk to the dealer he said that it was going to be around 30k meant to compete with the new tsx coming out in spring with the I-6 TT and sh-AWD so i dont know how much it costs but the salesman i talked to said around 30-31k

i-6 TT???? haha
honda doesn't have any i6's
they have one turbo charged unleaded and its the 2.3L in the rdx
sh-awd will trickle down, which means the TL will get it before the tsx.
there is no new 6cyl development that i know. all the dev resources are monopolized by the v10, diesel, and fuel cell development.

papercliprebel · Post by **papercliprebel** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 12:21 pm

is it really that hard to make a rwd, 50/50, 4dr, 6spd compact. am i alone in this?

blauenlanze · Post by **blauenlanze** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:45 pm

It's hard to make any car 50/50.

VTECaddict · Post by **VTECaddict** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:09 pm

looks like the 135 will start out at over $35k and top out at $52k fully loaded. ouch.

vedran · Post by **vedran** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:00 am

VTECaddict wrote:looks like the 135 will start out at over $35k and top out at $52k fully loaded. ouch.

that sounds reasonable. when people told me the 135 was going to be at 30k i told them they were crazy. now i see that i'm somewhat right and that it's the 128 will be the 28-30k sports coupe and 135i will be in the 40s and 50s just as i expected. i think bmw would be crazy to have a 135i fully loaded at like 35k

badass cars though, both of them

eaglecatcher · Post by **eaglecatcher** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:35 am

blauenlanze wrote:It's hard to make any car 50/50.

I read somewhere that some people think that a 52/48 or a 51/49 is better than a 50/50 (F/R).

Dunno if that's true, but who knows, seems like 50/50 woudl be best to me. or hell, maybe even 49/51 or 48/52

uh2lsaab · Post by **uh2lsaab** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 4:18 pm

eaglecatcher wrote: I read somewhere that some people think that a 52/48 or a 51/49 is better than a 50/50 (F/R).

Dunno if that's true, but who knows, seems like 50/50 woudl be best to me. or hell, maybe even 49/51 or 48/52

Interesting. Maybe that's because you want more traction on the front wheels while you're braking or steering on the track and when you accelerate, the weight shifts rearward anyway?

Just a thought.

eaglecatcher · Post by **eaglecatcher** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:52 pm

uh2lsaab wrote:
eaglecatcher wrote: I read somewhere that some people think that a 52/48 or a 51/49 is better than a 50/50 (F/R).

Dunno if that's true, but who knows, seems like 50/50 woudl be best to me. or hell, maybe even 49/51 or 48/52
Interesting. Maybe that's because you want more traction on the front wheels while you're braking or steering on the track and when you accelerate, the weight shifts rearward anyway?

Just a thought.

yeah, thats what I was thinking, but who knows. I suppose anywhere from the 48-52 range is good enough for my purposes.

papercliprebel · Post by **papercliprebel** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:10 pm

i prefer a little rear bias. 49/51. for the braking reason specifically.
who said they prefer a forward biased vehicle? the only places i've seen that is in purely marketing bs brochures.

uh2lsaab · Post by **uh2lsaab** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 9:51 pm

papercliprebel wrote:i prefer a little rear bias. 49/51. for the braking reason specifically.
who said they prefer a forward biased vehicle? the only places i've seen that is in purely marketing bs brochures.

I like forward bias for traction because I drive on roads that sometimes get snowy and icy and I don't drive on a racetrack (except once I did).

NjSi · Post by **NjSi** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 9:59 pm

i like 40-60 or 45-55 get some more weight over the back wheels, but still have enough over the front.

papercliprebel · Post by **papercliprebel** » Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:54 pm

uh2lsaab wrote:
papercliprebel wrote:i prefer a little rear bias. 49/51. for the braking reason specifically.
who said they prefer a forward biased vehicle? the only places i've seen that is in purely marketing bs brochures.
I like forward bias for traction because I drive on roads that sometimes get snowy and icy and I don't drive on a racetrack (except once I did).

because braking on snow and ice isn't important.

hockeystyx16 · Post by **hockeystyx16** » Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:58 pm

kinda hard not to have forward bias on a FF car.

HighlyEvolved · Post by **HighlyEvolved** » Wed Nov 21, 2007 11:48 pm

wait.. so america never got the 1 series in hatchback version? I personally really like it.