[Shotimes] Interesting...porting the intake

[Donald Mallinson]

Ian,

I understand your thoughts, but I am not looking for a hard 
riding, 20 mpg hot rod, I want something to replace the 96 
SHO eventually.  I also don't want to spend $50,000+

At about $45,000 the 530 is about as much as I will ever 
spend on a vehicle that isn't exceptional in all ways.

Also, I didn't say anything about the 540 or M series cars, 
I am sure they are great, but they aren't in the same 
general league with the SHO or anything I am really looking 
at, so saying the 530 was less than overwhelming isn't 
comparing apples to oranges.  I am comparing the car that 
BMW and the motoring press dredges up as proof of superior 
car genes, to a seven year old SHO that sold for a lot less 
when new.  As I said, the 530 compares well, but not for the 
money.

Don Mallinson

Ian Fisher wrote:
> Don
> While I respect your opionion, why not drive the 540i sport? Driving the
> 530i and not being impressed by it is kind of like driving a Taurus GL and
> saying that the SHO is not impressive. The 540i and the M5 are the 5
> series kings; everything below is just bread and butter for the "look at
> me crowd".
> 
> Ian
> 
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Donald Mallinson wrote:
> 
> 
>>Ron,
>>
>>I figured you would chime back!  :)
>>
>>I think I got your comments figured right.  Again, not that
>>I totally disagree with you, just that I think your
>>perspective is still a little bit off.  Even today a 220 hp
>>car is still more high performance than bread and butter
>>family sedan.  The typical "bread and butter" car is still
>>well under 200 hp, and few have the handling to match a 15
>>year old SHO even today.  A typical current higher
>>performance car is still not over 220 hp with very few
>>exceptions.  The bland, but high HP Nissan universal motor
>>being the major exception.  Everything else is in a higher
>>price range than the SHO ever was, even with inflation, for
>>the most part.
>>
>>I think BMW may be the most overrated car in history.  It is
>>nice, and maybe even the top of the heap, but it ain't THAT
>>much better than the SHO for the money.  I HAVE given the
>>BMW cars a chance, and may even desire to own one some day,
>>but direct comparison of my 7 year old 96 to a new 530i was
>>enough to let me cool my needs for a new car for a while.
>>Yep, the 530 was nicer, but not THAT much nicer.  Should
>>have been way superior for $45,000.  And still just 225 hp?
>>  WAY down compared to the Japanese competition.  Why
>>doesn't everyone blast the Beemer for that lack of power?
>>Smooth will only get them so many bonus points in my book.
>>Why can't BMW get more HP out of that ancient motor?
>>
>>Now to fully incur your wrath, I will tell you that I am
>>seriously considering the Caddy CTS as my next new car.  I
>>still would rather buy American and my test of a 220 hp auto
>>CTS when they first came out was impressive.  Quality, yep,
>>power, yep, style?  That is very personal, but today, that
>>CTS style is VERY much copied by the supposed "better"
>>brands, and the CTS is starting to look like it will age
>>well.  Yes I would like to have the V version with 400 hp,
>>but not sure about availablilty.  The new motor in the base
>>Auto car, solves most of the lack of HP situation and that
>>motor will get the manual next year...something to think about.
>>
>>Don Mallinson
>>
>>Ron Porter wrote:
>>
>>>I figured you would chime in!!!
>>>
>>>You read more into what I have stated for years. And Mark has shown my
>>>14-year-old comments to be true. The 3.0 SHO motor in a 3,000 # car is an
>>>exceptional runner. It's a matter of perspective. My perspective is from
>>>owning cars that were much quicker than the SHO, others have different
>>>experiences (my "FSS" comes to mind!)
>>>
>>>Other point is that the SHO was the "performance car" back in those days.
>>>Today, these cars are the bread-and-butter family sedans with 225-275 HP, as
>>>opposed to having maybe 150-175 back in that day.
>>>
>>>>From the perspective of American cars, and even cars like the 535i BMW in
>>>the late '80s, the SHO "is" low on torque. Again, a matter of perspective.
>>>
>>>There is also much more to a car than just the engine, and this is where the
>>>BMWs and others have excelled.
>>>
>>>Ron Porter
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Shotimes mailing list
>>Shotimes@autox.team.net
>>http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shotimes
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .