E30 325i Rag-Top

Only if you put a spare in… most cars without RFTs still don’t have a spare wheel. Mobility kit, can of gunk, etc. instead smaller and lighter! From what I’ve been told it’s down to the extra weight of the tyre and wheel for an RFT vs non, beefing up the tyre sidewall and rim of the wheel adds weight, which then increases the inertia requiring more energy (ie fuel) to be used to get it moving. Same reason the wheel bolt PCD has been reduced from the tried and trusted 5 x 120 on the new models. Less wheel and hub inertia, less energy, less emissions.

As above, CO2 direct link to fuel consumption. Interestingly diesel produces less CO2 for same fuel consumption, so the two cars would be pretty damn close.

I would imagine they would have got an external supplier to wrap it for them (it is a physical car, not a render btw).

Fuel economy and emissions are directly related, the less fuel you burn the less CO2 and other pollutants you generate. Changing one has same effect on the other. Emissions is the main driver for the research & development, if you can’t get to the ever lower emissions levels then you cannot sell those vehicles in many, many markets. Lower fuel consumption, or lower running costs (if fuel prices don’t change…), is the positive side effect for the owner. With the ever lower emissions levels required every single little influencing factor is under the micro-scope, there are no easy ways to reduce even more. For example, RFT produces ever so slightly more emissions than do “normal” tyres..

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a40435258/bmw-m-csl-teased/ And a bit more information and pics here too... https://www.bmwblog.com/2022/06/27/bmw-3-0-csl-coachbuilt-car-officially-confirmed-in-first-teaser/

@BM WORLD what’s with that front bumper, not the usual MTech2 front for an E46 Coupe is it?

Yes, that part wouldn’t be taking any of the vertical load of the engine weight, however, being around the mounting bolt it would be taking a load under accelerating / braking and cornering. Not as high max loads, but more repetitive I would suggest. My concern would be it cracking around the bolt allowing more engine movement. That section has been beefed up and raised in the design for a reason… Probably not a “do not under any circumstances” more a “not ideal but if there’s no other way” fix.

Bugger, looking closer at your photo I can see how far out the top of the mount is, so yeah, needs quite a bit of relief there. More than I would want to take out of an engine mount that’s for sure. Is it possible to get around the pipe that’s the issue and squeeze it into an oval rather than round? Not perfect, but the change in cross section should be minimal, and look better than just bashing a dent into it..

I’d agree with M3AN, the mount looks like it’s just the heat shielding in the way which could be re-profiled to give more clearance. Worst case it means less of a tweak to the headers. If it is the actual Ali mount arm that’s in the way then I wouldn’t suggest removing any of that for clearance… just in case.

f**k me, not again. Been covered more than enough times in threads on thousands of different topics. Closed.

there are / were more than one testing cycle. That looks to be an ancient USofA EPA one for urban cycle, there will be a joined extra-urban (or highway in US speak). All slightly different to reflect different traffic characteristics of various countries and areas. Hundreds of different EU ones. But yeah, pretty sure none of them have anything near 50% idling time. Would be interesting to know how it works under WLTP when no two journeys can be exactly the same..? @Gaz not sure that was directly VWs fault, more the risk-averse reaction of most other manufacturers in the hope of not being fined.

And the traction control if you’re a bit heavy with the right foot.

Stop / start doesn’t make it any slower to get away, you lift off the brake and by the time your foot is on the gas the engine is running, it’s that quick (well it is in a new bimmer anyways). If it’s Auckland traffic, the car behind will be either texting, looking at Facebook, watching a movie, doing their make-up or eating breakfast anyway. Normally takes them ten seconds to realise the car in front has moved, it’s why the traffic is so sh*t.

I take it you are referring to the BMW having been built 3 decades ago..? The same is very much true of the Japanese cars as well. I would love to see some stats on vehicle reliability, not the JD Power rubbish which factors in customer expectation, but proper failure rates per 1000 vehicles for instance. Having worked with, and owned, brands from UK, Europe, Japan, US and Aussie there are horror stories and problems behind the scenes for all of them. There is a class suit against Toyota in Aussie at the moment due to vehicle issues. Worst two cars for problems I have owned were a Mitsi and Subbie - both Jappers! There is so much more equipment on modern cars, that has to be developed so quickly, that there are much higher chances of things going wrong. Doesn’t matter where in the world it’s made though, situation is the same.