|
In Reply to: Re: Your opininon posted by paul on July 10, 2000 at 18:42:09:
i beg to differ on this point (although i have a feeling i misunderstood you).
bmw PAYS attention to little details. such as the driver oriented console, the instant mileage gauge, the variable speed of the windshield wipers, the on board computer with display, the separate armrests, the self-imposed top speed alert and so many other things. i am not saying they were BMW inventions or firsts, but you do not see them everywhere.
what i think you meant was the details as in implementation (like you said, certain materials) and not as in design or lack thereof.
: I can deal with the small problems, but what I can't accept is that BMW do not publish factory service manuals for us to fix those problems. I would have been happier if they had 'fessed up on that nikasil thing, too.
I have to disagree on this, too. the history of this issue has american origins. as you may know, NA relies heavily on crude oil from the Persian Gulf, which has a higher sulphurous profile than the Northern Sea or Russian (Caspian Sea) crude mostly used in Europe. As the engines were developed in Europe and as this issue does not occur in a lab using a Berzelius glass, it's easily understandable why the failure. All they wanted to do is build a lighter and more rigid engine. After the first cases, they were still puzzled and the resolution came quite late in the game, when after 8 years, the E34s were replaced.
You are implying BMW knew about this alloy's problem with high sulphur gas, which is IMHO too farfetched.
: It's just a matter of accepting what you're getting for your money.
: We also shouldn't forget that the E34 like most bimmers is a touring sedan designed for German autobahns, at least in the past decades a different world from US roads.
That is also true, and that is why I am still amazed at the lack of rattles on the crappy concrete highways.
Regards,
Dragos