I'm feeling a bit bored with the Primera (98 2.0GT) lately, and am 
considering selling up and buying something a bit quicker and more 
luxurious. I can't afford much for the cost of changing, so Im looking for 
something of similar age (probably slightly older).
The particular model I'm considering is a late SAAB 9000CSE Turbo 
(preferably a 200bhp version). These seem to have a decent reputation yet 
depriciate nicely. I like the idea of a turbo because I want more grunt at 
lower revs - the Primera is quite poor in this respect and tends to need at 
least 4000rpm for decent acceleration. MPG is of little concern as I have 
very low mileage - my workplace is about 15 minutes walk away :-). I'm 
after plenty of toys, too - especially cruise & climate. A decent interior 
would be nice, too - the Primera's is crap, especially the leather.
Any thoughts on the SAAB or other suggestions, please? Anything special to 
look for when viewing one? Given the age I would be buying at, longevity is 
my main concern, and avoiding costly faults (e.g. turbo failure). I would 
probably give autos a wide berth, mainly for those reasons.


Any thoughts much appreciated.

-- 
Stuart Sharp

"Stu"  wrote in message 
news:Xns96A0C6F133300nobodyhomecom@216.196.109.144...

> I'm feeling a bit bored with the Primera (98 2.0GT) lately, and am
> considering selling up and buying something a bit quicker and more
> luxurious. I can't afford much for the cost of changing, so Im looking for
> something of similar age (probably slightly older).
> The particular model I'm considering is a late SAAB 9000CSE Turbo
> (preferably a 200bhp version). These seem to have a decent reputation yet
> depriciate nicely. I like the idea of a turbo because I want more grunt at
> lower revs - the Primera is quite poor in this respect and tends to need 
> at
> least 4000rpm for decent acceleration. MPG is of little concern as I have
> very low mileage - my workplace is about 15 minutes walk away :-). I'm
> after plenty of toys, too - especially cruise & climate. A decent interior
> would be nice, too - the Primera's is crap, especially the leather.
> Any thoughts on the SAAB or other suggestions, please? Anything special to
> look for when viewing one? Given the age I would be buying at, longevity 
> is
> my main concern, and avoiding costly faults (e.g. turbo failure). I would
> probably give autos a wide berth, mainly for those reasons.
>
>
> Any thoughts much appreciated.


I wouldn't have thought turbo failure would be your biggest problem. Have 
browse some the SAAB forums for camchain failure! Nasty & expensive.
Get a BMW E32 735/740/750.or E34 535/540  cheap as chips and *all* the toys 
and there are a surprising number of manuals about. most people want the 
autos for some reason.

cheers,
JB.

"JB"  wrote in message 
news:3kqesjFvttfsU1@individual.net...

>
> "Stu"  wrote in message 
> news:Xns96A0C6F133300nobodyhomecom@216.196.109.144...
>> I'm feeling a bit bored with the Primera (98 2.0GT) lately, and am
>> considering selling up and buying something a bit quicker and more
>> luxurious. I can't afford much for the cost of changing, so Im looking 
>> for
>> something of similar age (probably slightly older).
>> The particular model I'm considering is a late SAAB 9000CSE Turbo
>> (preferably a 200bhp version). These seem to have a decent reputation yet
>> depriciate nicely. I like the idea of a turbo because I want more grunt 
>> at
>> lower revs - the Primera is quite poor in this respect and tends to need 
>> at
>> least 4000rpm for decent acceleration. MPG is of little concern as I have
>> very low mileage - my workplace is about 15 minutes walk away :-). I'm
>> after plenty of toys, too - especially cruise & climate. A decent 
>> interior
>> would be nice, too - the Primera's is crap, especially the leather.
>> Any thoughts on the SAAB or other suggestions, please? Anything special 
>> to
>> look for when viewing one? Given the age I would be buying at, longevity 
>> is
>> my main concern, and avoiding costly faults (e.g. turbo failure). I would
>> probably give autos a wide berth, mainly for those reasons.
>>
>>
>> Any thoughts much appreciated.
>
> I wouldn't have thought turbo failure would be your biggest problem. Have 
> browse some the SAAB forums for camchain failure! Nasty & expensive.
> Get a BMW E32 735/740/750.or E34 535/540  cheap as chips and *all* the 
> toys and there are a surprising number of manuals about. most people want 
> the autos for some reason.


I've had a fair few high miler saabs - never had a chain fail, (or turbo for 
that matter) 200K+ miles is normal.  Early 90's 9k's fully loaded can be 
picked up for a few hundred quid, grab a bargain!

>>> Any thoughts much appreciated.
>>
>> I wouldn't have thought turbo failure would be your biggest problem.
>> Have browse some the SAAB forums for camchain failure! Nasty &
>> expensive. Get a BMW E32 735/740/750.or E34 535/540  cheap as chips
>> and *all* the toys and there are a surprising number of manuals
>> about. most people want the autos for some reason.
> 
> I've had a fair few high miler saabs - never had a chain fail, (or
> turbo for that matter) 200K+ miles is normal.  Early 90's 9k's fully
> loaded can be picked up for a few hundred quid, grab a bargain!
> 
> 

Thanks for the opinions. With a timing chain, I would normally expect it to   
start rattling some time before complete failure occured, in which case I 
would  change it ( or get someone else to) straight away. I wouldn't expect 
a chain to be too dear, but a replacement turbo might be!

Re the BMW suggestion: interesting idea, but that is aiming a little older 
than I intended. I accept that with BMW mechanicals, the age may not be a 
big worry, but I may find it difficult to get one in the right cosmetic 
condition (i.e. free of dents & scratches, good clean interior etc). Also, 
having checked autotrader (private only), the more powerful ones seem quite 
rare and they all seem to be autos. I'm not totally against the auto 
concept, but if I were to get one I'd live in constant fear of a breakdown, 
costing a fortune to sort! 


-- 
Stuart Sharp

"Stu"  wrote in message 
news:Xns96A1A23FE8729nobodyhomecom@216.196.109.144...

>>>> Any thoughts much appreciated.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't have thought turbo failure would be your biggest problem.
>>> Have browse some the SAAB forums for camchain failure! Nasty &
>>> expensive. Get a BMW E32 735/740/750.or E34 535/540  cheap as chips
>>> and *all* the toys and there are a surprising number of manuals
>>> about. most people want the autos for some reason.
>>
>> I've had a fair few high miler saabs - never had a chain fail, (or
>> turbo for that matter) 200K+ miles is normal.  Early 90's 9k's fully
>> loaded can be picked up for a few hundred quid, grab a bargain!
>>
>>
> Thanks for the opinions. With a timing chain, I would normally expect it 
> to
> start rattling some time before complete failure occured, in which case I
> would  change it ( or get someone else to) straight away. I wouldn't 
> expect
> a chain to be too dear, but a replacement turbo might be!


A camchain replacement on a 9000 will set you back much more than the car is 
worth. It is not a pleasant job at all.


>
> Re the BMW suggestion: interesting idea, but that is aiming a little older
> than I intended. I accept that with BMW mechanicals, the age may not be a
> big worry, but I may find it difficult to get one in the right cosmetic
> condition (i.e. free of dents & scratches, good clean interior etc). Also,
> having checked autotrader (private only), the more powerful ones seem 
> quite
> rare and they all seem to be autos. I'm not totally against the auto
> concept, but if I were to get one I'd live in constant fear of a 
> breakdown,
> costing a fortune to sort!
>


Older (1988-95) BMWs were very well built by anyone's standards. They run to 
amazing mileages and still the cosametics can be in good nick. Just have a 
look at how many are still on the road in excellent condition, then look at 
the interstellar mileages on some of them. I do work on several E34/E32s 
some with well over 600k miles on them, and all are on their original 
engines. 2 out of 9 have had replacment auto boxes. One at 218k and the 
other at 331k miles. Don't forget that these types of ars are not often 
owned (and ruined) by 'Nova Monkeys' so there is a real chance of finding 
one in really nice condition for very little money.


JB

> A camchain replacement on a 9000 will set you back much more than the
> car is worth. It is not a pleasant job at all.
> 

I assume it's not possible with the engine in-situ, then?


> Older (1988-95) BMWs were very well built by anyone's standards. They
> run to amazing mileages and still the cosametics can be in good nick.
> Just have a look at how many are still on the road in excellent
> condition, then look at the interstellar mileages on some of them. I
> do work on several E34/E32s some with well over 600k miles on them,
> and all are on their original engines. 2 out of 9 have had replacment
> auto boxes. One at 218k and the other at 331k miles. Don't forget that
> these types of ars are not often owned (and ruined) by 'Nova Monkeys'
> so there is a real chance of finding one in really nice condition for
> very little money. 
> 
> 

The autos tend to be long-lived, then? I noticed this on eBay: 
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4564912192
The worry with this is the Nikasil issue. I have emailed the seller about 
this (to see if the engine has been re-lined) and have also asked about 
service history. It's quite close to where I live so I would be in a 
position to go for a look. What do you think it's worth?
-- 

Stuart Sharp

"Stu"  wrote in message 
news:Xns96A1B6B3CA24Dnobodyhomecom@216.196.109.144...

>> A camchain replacement on a 9000 will set you back much more than the
>> car is worth. It is not a pleasant job at all.
>>
> I assume it's not possible with the engine in-situ, then?
>
>> Older (1988-95) BMWs were very well built by anyone's standards. They
>> run to amazing mileages and still the cosametics can be in good nick.
>> Just have a look at how many are still on the road in excellent
>> condition, then look at the interstellar mileages on some of them. I
>> do work on several E34/E32s some with well over 600k miles on them,
>> and all are on their original engines. 2 out of 9 have had replacment
>> auto boxes. One at 218k and the other at 331k miles. Don't forget that
>> these types of ars are not often owned (and ruined) by 'Nova Monkeys'
>> so there is a real chance of finding one in really nice condition for
>> very little money.
>>
>>
> The autos tend to be long-lived, then? I noticed this on eBay:
> http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4564912192
> The worry with this is the Nikasil issue. I have emailed the seller about
> this (to see if the engine has been re-lined) and have also asked about
> service history. It's quite close to where I live so I would be in a
> position to go for a look. What do you think it's worth?
> -- 

Avoid this one I think. E39 5-series had probably more problems wtih the M52 
engine than the V8s did. Closet Nova Monkey too ("Angel Eye lights front & 
rear! Jesus!" Plenty more fish in the sea though.

JB

"Stu"  wrote in message
news:Xns96A1A23FE8729nobodyhomecom@216.196.109.144...

> >>> Any thoughts much appreciated.
> >>
> >> I wouldn't have thought turbo failure would be your biggest problem.
> >> Have browse some the SAAB forums for camchain failure! Nasty &
> >> expensive. Get a BMW E32 735/740/750.or E34 535/540  cheap as chips
> >> and *all* the toys and there are a surprising number of manuals
> >> about. most people want the autos for some reason.
> >
> > I've had a fair few high miler saabs - never had a chain fail, (or
> > turbo for that matter) 200K+ miles is normal.  Early 90's 9k's fully
> > loaded can be picked up for a few hundred quid, grab a bargain!
> >
> >
> Thanks for the opinions. With a timing chain, I would normally expect it
to
> start rattling some time before complete failure occured, in which case I
> would  change it ( or get someone else to) straight away. I wouldn't
expect
> a chain to be too dear, but a replacement turbo might be!
>
> Re the BMW suggestion: interesting idea, but that is aiming a little older
> than I intended. I accept that with BMW mechanicals, the age may not be a
> big worry, but I may find it difficult to get one in the right cosmetic
> condition (i.e. free of dents & scratches, good clean interior etc).


I have a '94 525i SE. 155k The body and interior can only be described as
virtually perfect. Excellent original p/w without any scratches. No dents.
No
rust. Seats, (cloth) and interior have no marks or signs of wear, and it's
mechanically faultless. Engine and auto transmission are all original.
I don't think BMW's like mine are that rare TBH. IMO they are an excellent
s/h buy.
Pics at http://photos.yahoo.com/metieruk if you're interested.
Cost me 2500 18 months ago, and so far hasn't cost me penny in maintenance,
apart from a service. For the sort of money you're considering, you can buy
something much later with a lower mileage.
Mike.

>> The autos tend to be long-lived, then? I noticed this on eBay:
>> http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4564912192
>> The worry with this is the Nikasil issue. I have emailed the seller
>> about this (to see if the engine has been re-lined) and have also
>> asked about service history. It's quite close to where I live so I
>> would be in a position to go for a look. What do you think it's
>> worth? -- 
> Avoid this one I think. E39 5-series had probably more problems wtih
> the M52 engine than the V8s did. Closet Nova Monkey too ("Angel Eye
> lights front & rear! Jesus!" Plenty more fish in the sea though.


I thought the angel eyes were standard on all e39s? V8s no good either, 
then? Bugger! The 530 V8 was the one I fancied! Looks like all 540s are V8 
and 535 straight sixs went out in 1992 (I want something later than that). 
That just leaves the 525 V6, then. I'm not sure that will give the level of 
oomph I require in such a heavy car. In short, BMWs are out, then.



-- 
Stuart Sharp

"Mike G"  wrote in
news:42e91838$0$3505$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net: 


> 
> "Stu"  wrote in message
> news:Xns96A1A23FE8729nobodyhomecom@216.196.109.144...
>> >>> Any thoughts much appreciated.
>> >>
>> >> I wouldn't have thought turbo failure would be your biggest
>> >> problem. Have browse some the SAAB forums for camchain failure!
>> >> Nasty & expensive. Get a BMW E32 735/740/750.or E34 535/540  cheap
>> >> as chips and *all* the toys and there are a surprising number of
>> >> manuals about. most people want the autos for some reason.
>> >
>> > I've had a fair few high miler saabs - never had a chain fail, (or
>> > turbo for that matter) 200K+ miles is normal.  Early 90's 9k's
>> > fully loaded can be picked up for a few hundred quid, grab a
>> > bargain! 
>> >
>> >
>> Thanks for the opinions. With a timing chain, I would normally expect
>> it 
> to
>> start rattling some time before complete failure occured, in which
>> case I would  change it ( or get someone else to) straight away. I
>> wouldn't 
> expect
>> a chain to be too dear, but a replacement turbo might be!
>>
>> Re the BMW suggestion: interesting idea, but that is aiming a little
>> older than I intended. I accept that with BMW mechanicals, the age
>> may not be a big worry, but I may find it difficult to get one in the
>> right cosmetic condition (i.e. free of dents & scratches, good clean
>> interior etc). 
> 
> I have a '94 525i SE. 155k The body and interior can only be described
> as virtually perfect. Excellent original p/w without any scratches. No
> dents. No
> rust. Seats, (cloth) and interior have no marks or signs of wear, and
> it's mechanically faultless. Engine and auto transmission are all
> original. I don't think BMW's like mine are that rare TBH. IMO they
> are an excellent s/h buy.
> Pics at http://photos.yahoo.com/metieruk if you're interested.
> Cost me 2500 18 months ago, and so far hasn't cost me penny in
> maintenance, apart from a service. For the sort of money you're
> considering, you can buy something much later with a lower mileage.
> Mike.
> 
> 

A very nice car indeed! I notice there's a lot more 525s around, but I'm 
not sure that's enough power for me - I want something quick. For a car 
so heavy, I was aiming at least 200bhp.

Fussy, aren't I? Like the bloke in Little Britain who comes in the shop. 
MARGARET! MARGARET!


-- 
Stuart Sharp

"JB"  wrote in message
news:3kshrqFvuhffU1@individual.net...

>
> "Stu"  wrote in message
> news:Xns96A1B6B3CA24Dnobodyhomecom@216.196.109.144...
> >> A camchain replacement on a 9000 will set you back much more than the
> >> car is worth. It is not a pleasant job at all.
> >>
> > I assume it's not possible with the engine in-situ, then?
> >
> >> Older (1988-95) BMWs were very well built by anyone's standards. They
> >> run to amazing mileages and still the cosametics can be in good nick.
> >> Just have a look at how many are still on the road in excellent
> >> condition, then look at the interstellar mileages on some of them. I
> >> do work on several E34/E32s some with well over 600k miles on them,
> >> and all are on their original engines. 2 out of 9 have had replacment
> >> auto boxes. One at 218k and the other at 331k miles. Don't forget that
> >> these types of ars are not often owned (and ruined) by 'Nova Monkeys'
> >> so there is a real chance of finding one in really nice condition for
> >> very little money.
> >>
> >>
> > The autos tend to be long-lived, then? I noticed this on eBay:
> > http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4564912192
> > The worry with this is the Nikasil issue. I have emailed the seller
about
> > this (to see if the engine has been re-lined) and have also asked about
> > service history. It's quite close to where I live so I would be in a
> > position to go for a look. What do you think it's worth?
> > -- 
> Avoid this one I think. E39 5-series had probably more problems wtih the

M52 > engine than the V8s did.

What problems are you referring to?
The 2.8 engine is virtually the same as the 2.5, and both are regarded as
very good engines, capable of high mileages without problems.
AFAIK only the M60 V8's had Nikasil bores.

Closet Nova Monkey too ("Angel Eye lights front &

> rear! Jesus!"


I agree about the lights though, but seeing as it's close, it might still be
worthwhile for the OP to take a look. Would give him an idea of what a BMW
can offer. compared to a Saab.
Mike.

"Stu"  wrote in message
news:Xns96A1C12AB3857nobodyhomecom@216.196.109.144...

> "Mike G"  wrote in

> > I have a '94 525i SE. 155k The body and interior can only be described
> > as virtually perfect. Excellent original p/w without any scratches. No
> > dents. No
> > rust. Seats, (cloth) and interior have no marks or signs of wear, and
> > it's mechanically faultless. Engine and auto transmission are all
> > original. I don't think BMW's like mine are that rare TBH. IMO they
> > are an excellent s/h buy.
> > Pics at http://photos.yahoo.com/metieruk if you're interested.
> > Cost me 2500 18 months ago, and so far hasn't cost me penny in
> > maintenance, apart from a service. For the sort of money you're
> > considering, you can buy something much later with a lower mileage.
> > Mike.
> >
> >
> A very nice car indeed! I notice there's a lot more 525s around, but I'm
> not sure that's enough power for me - I want something quick. For a car
> so heavy, I was aiming at least 200bhp.


The M52TU 2.5 engine develops 192bhp. Torque 181 lbft at 4200rpm. The 2.8
develops 193BHP but the torque is better. 207 lbft at 3950.
I wouldn't say my 525 is exactly slow. 0-60 is around 9secs, but it is an
auto.
I would expect a 528, 0-60 to be less than 8 secs.
Top speed for both engines in the 5 series is over 140mph.
At 80mph on the m/w, engine is very quiet and relaxed. IIRC about 2500rpm.
Very little road noise either.
Another advantage over a Saab is that the driving wheels are at the right
end. :-)
My Celica is much faster, with 220bhp, but if I had to choose between the
two, I'd take the BM. Especially on a long trip.
Dave! Convince him. :-)
Mike.

"Mike G"  wrote in message 
news:42e91ef2$0$91528$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...

>
> "JB"  wrote in message
> news:3kshrqFvuhffU1@individual.net...
>>
>> "Stu"  wrote in message
>> news:Xns96A1B6B3CA24Dnobodyhomecom@216.196.109.144...
>> >> A camchain replacement on a 9000 will set you back much more than the
>> >> car is worth. It is not a pleasant job at all.
>> >>
>> > I assume it's not possible with the engine in-situ, then?
>> >
>> >> Older (1988-95) BMWs were very well built by anyone's standards. They
>> >> run to amazing mileages and still the cosametics can be in good nick.
>> >> Just have a look at how many are still on the road in excellent
>> >> condition, then look at the interstellar mileages on some of them. I
>> >> do work on several E34/E32s some with well over 600k miles on them,
>> >> and all are on their original engines. 2 out of 9 have had replacment
>> >> auto boxes. One at 218k and the other at 331k miles. Don't forget that
>> >> these types of ars are not often owned (and ruined) by 'Nova Monkeys'
>> >> so there is a real chance of finding one in really nice condition for
>> >> very little money.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > The autos tend to be long-lived, then? I noticed this on eBay:
>> > http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4564912192
>> > The worry with this is the Nikasil issue. I have emailed the seller
> about
>> > this (to see if the engine has been re-lined) and have also asked about
>> > service history. It's quite close to where I live so I would be in a
>> > position to go for a look. What do you think it's worth?
>> > -- 
>> Avoid this one I think. E39 5-series had probably more problems wtih the
> M52 > engine than the V8s did.
>
> What problems are you referring to?
> The 2.8 engine is virtually the same as the 2.5, and both are regarded as
> very good engines, capable of high mileages without problems.
> AFAIK only the M60 V8's had Nikasil bores.
>

Nope. See http://www.bimmer.info/forum/archive/index.php/t-6509


> Closet Nova Monkey too ("Angel Eye lights front &
>> rear! Jesus!"
>
> I agree about the lights though, but seeing as it's close, it might still 
> be
> worthwhile for the OP to take a look. Would give him an idea of what a BMW
> can offer. compared to a Saab.
> Mike.


Nah. The E39 is pretty shoddy in build quality compared with the earlier 
e34s. Let him take out a nice 540i or even an older 535i ( with bombproof 
M30 big six).

JB

"Stu"  wrote in message
news:Xns96A1BEDCB856Fnobodyhomecom@216.196.109.144...

> >> The autos tend to be long-lived, then? I noticed this on eBay:
> >> http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4564912192
> >> The worry with this is the Nikasil issue. I have emailed the seller
> >> about this (to see if the engine has been re-lined) and have also
> >> asked about service history. It's quite close to where I live so I
> >> would be in a position to go for a look. What do you think it's
> >> worth? -- 
> > Avoid this one I think. E39 5-series had probably more problems wtih
> > the M52 engine than the V8s did. Closet Nova Monkey too ("Angel Eye
> > lights front & rear! Jesus!" Plenty more fish in the sea though.
>
> I thought the angel eyes were standard on all e39s? V8s no good either,
> then? Bugger! The 530 V8 was the one I fancied! Looks like all 540s are V8
> and 535 straight sixs went out in 1992 (I want something later than that).
> That just leaves the 525 V6, then. I'm not sure that will give the level
of
> oomph I require in such a heavy car. In short, BMWs are out, then.


In that case have a look at this BM.
http://tinyurl.com/cpckt
326bhp at 5000. Torque 361 at 3900
Mike.




>
>
>
> -- 
> Stuart Sharp

> That just leaves the 525 V6, then. I'm not sure that will give the level 
> of
> oomph I require in such a heavy car. In short, BMWs are out, then.


No, I doubt it would either, given that it doesn't exist :-)

-- 
Peter

"You're not a real UKRCMer until you've owned a Rover 620ti."

> A very nice car indeed! I notice there's a lot more 525s around, but I'm
> not sure that's enough power for me - I want something quick. For a car
> so heavy, I was aiming at least 200bhp.
>
> Fussy, aren't I? Like the bloke in Little Britain who comes in the shop.
> MARGARET! MARGARET!


Well the 525 24v models (all the later ones) have 192bhp, and the later 
VANOS ones are even better, and pretty good on fuel too.  Definitely worth a 
look IMHO.

-- 
Peter

"You're not a real UKRCMer until you've owned a Rover 620ti."

"Mike G"  wrote in
news:42e9257f$0$3491$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net: 


> 
> "Stu"  wrote in message
> news:Xns96A1C12AB3857nobodyhomecom@216.196.109.144...
>> "Mike G"  wrote in
> 
>> > I have a '94 525i SE. 155k The body and interior can only be
>> > described as virtually perfect. Excellent original p/w without any
>> > scratches. No dents. No
>> > rust. Seats, (cloth) and interior have no marks or signs of wear,
>> > and it's mechanically faultless. Engine and auto transmission are
>> > all original. I don't think BMW's like mine are that rare TBH. IMO
>> > they are an excellent s/h buy.
>> > Pics at http://photos.yahoo.com/metieruk if you're interested.
>> > Cost me 2500 18 months ago, and so far hasn't cost me penny in
>> > maintenance, apart from a service. For the sort of money you're
>> > considering, you can buy something much later with a lower mileage.
>> > Mike.
>> >
>> >
>> A very nice car indeed! I notice there's a lot more 525s around, but
>> I'm not sure that's enough power for me - I want something quick. For
>> a car so heavy, I was aiming at least 200bhp.
> 
> The M52TU 2.5 engine develops 192bhp. Torque 181 lbft at 4200rpm. The
> 2.8 develops 193BHP but the torque is better. 207 lbft at 3950.
> I wouldn't say my 525 is exactly slow. 0-60 is around 9secs, but it is
> an auto.


Is it for sale then, Mike? ;-)


> I would expect a 528, 0-60 to be less than 8 secs.
> Top speed for both engines in the 5 series is over 140mph.
> At 80mph on the m/w, engine is very quiet and relaxed. IIRC about
> 2500rpm. Very little road noise either.


The torque is the important thing. I'm not really too bothered about 0-60 
times. I'm not after this type of car so I can race immature fools from 
the lights. What concerns me is overtaking ability or the 50-70 time. As 
an enthusiastic (but responsible) driver, it is important to me to have 
the ability to pass slower drivers quickly and safely. That's what 
attracted me to the SAAB - it's turbocharged, so the extra grunt is 
delivered lower in the rev range, making it a powerful overtaking car, if 
not much of an off-the-line sprinter.


> Another advantage over a Saab is that the driving wheels are at the
> right end. :-)


I must confess, I've never owned a RWD car (or even driven one, unless a 
Ford Transit counts ;-), so I don't know how much of a big deal this is. 
But yes, I agree that RWD, in principal, is the best format for any big 
car.


> My Celica is much faster, with 220bhp, but if I had to choose between
> the two, I'd take the BM. Especially on a long trip.
> Dave! Convince him. :-)
> Mike.
> 

OKay! Okay! I'll take the 525 into consideration :-)



-- 
Stuart Sharp

"Mike G"  wrote in
news:42e929d7$0$3514$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net: 


> 
> "Stu"  wrote in message
> news:Xns96A1BEDCB856Fnobodyhomecom@216.196.109.144...


 That just leaves the 525 V6, then. I'm

>> not sure that will give the level 
> of
>> oomph I require in such a heavy car. In short, BMWs are out, then.
> 
> In that case have a look at this BM.
> http://tinyurl.com/cpckt
> 326bhp at 5000. Torque 361 at 3900
> Mike.


Bloody Hell! You'd need it to move that thing around! I might as well put 
wheels on my house!
Nah, 5s is attractive but a 7s would be overkill IYSWIM.

-- 
Stuart Sharp

"Stu"  wrote in message
news:Xns96A1D480F2674nobodyhomecom@216.196.109.144...

> "Mike G"  wrote in
> news:42e9257f$0$3491$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net:
>
> >
> > "Stu"  wrote in message
> > news:Xns96A1C12AB3857nobodyhomecom@216.196.109.144...
> >> "Mike G"  wrote in

> > The M52TU 2.5 engine develops 192bhp. Torque 181 lbft at 4200rpm. The
> > 2.8 develops 193BHP but the torque is better. 207 lbft at 3950.
> > I wouldn't say my 525 is exactly slow. 0-60 is around 9secs, but it is
> > an auto.
>
> Is it for sale then, Mike? ;-)


No. Even if my comments do sound like sales patter. :-)


> > I would expect a 528, 0-60 to be less than 8 secs.
> > Top speed for both engines in the 5 series is over 140mph.
> > At 80mph on the m/w, engine is very quiet and relaxed. IIRC about
> > 2500rpm. Very little road noise either.
>
> The torque is the important thing. I'm not really too bothered about 0-60
> times. I'm not after this type of car so I can race immature fools from
> the lights. What concerns me is overtaking ability or the 50-70 time. As
> an enthusiastic (but responsible) driver, it is important to me to have
> the ability to pass slower drivers quickly and safely. That's what
> attracted me to the SAAB - it's turbocharged, so the extra grunt is
> delivered lower in the rev range, making it a powerful overtaking car, if
> not much of an off-the-line sprinter.
>
> > Another advantage over a Saab is that the driving wheels are at the
> > right end. :-)
>
> I must confess, I've never owned a RWD car (or even driven one, unless a
> Ford Transit counts ;-), so I don't know how much of a big deal this is.
> But yes, I agree that RWD, in principal, is the best format for any big
> car.


If you're a keen driver you'll really appreciate the different handling of a
RWD car.
Personally I'd never buy a FWD car. Torque steer. Understeer. Wheelspin.
Limited lock. All too much for me.

>
> OKay! Okay! I'll take the 525 into consideration :-)


Have a look at this BMW if you're not interested in fuel consumption and
want power. Sounds right up your street. All the toys as well. :-)
http://tinyurl.com/cpckt
Auction finishes in about an hour though.
As a point of interest I baught my 525 through eBay.
Mike.

"JB"  wrote in message
news:3ksn7gF100t8uU1@individual.net...

>
> "Mike G"  wrote in message
> news:42e91ef2$0$91528$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...

> >> Avoid this one I think. E39 5-series had probably more problems wtih
the
> > M52 > engine than the V8s did.
> >
> > What problems are you referring to?
> > The 2.8 engine is virtually the same as the 2.5, and both are regarded
as
> > very good engines, capable of high mileages without problems.
> > AFAIK only the M60 V8's had Nikasil bores.
> >
> Nope. See http://www.bimmer.info/forum/archive/index.php/t-6509


My mistake. Interesting site, but it appears from what I've heard and read,
that Nikasil bores only seem to really affect the V8's.
The M52 and M52TU 6's are still considered to be very good engines.
Mine, with over 150k is still very quiet. All the compressions are high. It
pulls very well, and and doesn't need topping up between oil changes.
AFAIA 200k plus without any faults is nothing remarkable for these engines.

>
> > Closet Nova Monkey too ("Angel Eye lights front &
> >> rear! Jesus!"
> >
> > I agree about the lights though, but seeing as it's close, it might
still
> > be
> > worthwhile for the OP to take a look. Would give him an idea of what a
BMW
> > can offer. compared to a Saab.
> > Mike.
>
> Nah. The E39 is pretty shoddy in build quality compared with the earlier
> e34s.


My E34's steering is very good, but the recirculating ball and worm s/box
s/system on the E34's can give problems with wander etc. The E39 with it's
R&P is considered much better, and therefore a nicer car to drive.As far as
the build quality goes, never having been in an E39, or looked at one
closely, I can't offer an opinion.
Mike.

"AstraVanMan"  wrote in
news:HvaGe.17215$Hd4.5620@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net: 


> 
> Well the 525 24v models (all the later ones) have 192bhp, and the
> later VANOS ones are even better, and pretty good on fuel too. 
> Definitely worth a look IMHO.
> 


That's a variable valve timing thingamyjig, isn't it? The later one in the 
E39 will probably fall out of my range, but the late E34 versions are quite 
a realistic proposition. These have an earlier version of the vanos too, 
don't they.

Pity the diesel version isn't faster, in autotrader there's an N reg 525 
derv with FSH for 1500, and it's only 15 miles down the road!

BTW, what's the  spec like on the E34? I wanted cruise, but haven't seen it 
menitoned  in any E34 ads, even on the SE.
-- 
Stuart Sharp

"AstraVanMan"  wrote in
news:vuaGe.17214$Hd4.8864@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net: 


>> That just leaves the 525 V6, then. I'm not sure that will give the
>> level of
>> oomph I require in such a heavy car. In short, BMWs are out, then.
> 
> No, I doubt it would either, given that it doesn't exist :-)
> 


OK, clever clogs, straight six :-)

-- 
Stuart Sharp

"Mike G"  wrote in message
news:42e94173$0$40306$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...


> Have a look at this BMW if you're not interested in fuel consumption and
> want power. Sounds right up your street. All the toys as well. :-)
> http://tinyurl.com/cpckt
> Auction finishes in about an hour though.
> As a point of interest I baught my 525 through eBay.


Doh! Forgot I posted about this in an earlier post.
Mike.

"Mike G"  wrote in message 
news:42e941c1$0$39414$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...

>
> "JB"  wrote in message
> news:3ksn7gF100t8uU1@individual.net...
>>
>> "Mike G"  wrote in message
>> news:42e91ef2$0$91528$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
>
>> >> Avoid this one I think. E39 5-series had probably more problems wtih
> the
>> > M52 > engine than the V8s did.
>> >
>> > What problems are you referring to?
<snip>
>> Nah. The E39 is pretty shoddy in build quality compared with the earlier
>> e34s.
>
> My E34's steering is very good, but the recirculating ball and worm s/box
> s/system on the E34's can give problems with wander etc. The E39 with it's
> R&P is considered much better, and therefore a nicer car to drive.As far 
> as
> the build quality goes, never having been in an E39, or looked at one
> closely, I can't offer an opinion.


I've had the misfortune to work on several E39s. Many with very low miles 
too. All sorts of very un-BMW like faults. More like Ford or GM type faults.
The e34 is still probably the best of them all for build quality. After 1995 
the accountants took over from the engineers I reckon.
My 1993 E34 520i Touring has now 353866 miles on the clock. The oil comes 
out as clean as it went in (engine/gearbox & diff). The emissions are still 
within factory specs and it's still on the original clutch.. I just can't 
fault it (except it hasn't got the V8 fitted).
It does need a few more bhp (the 2.5 is ideal in this body shell), but I can 
live with it.
JB

"JB"  wrote in news:3kt051FvrrlcU1@individual.net:


> I've had the misfortune to work on several E39s. Many with very low
> miles too. All sorts of very un-BMW like faults. More like Ford or GM
> type faults. The e34 is still probably the best of them all for build
> quality. After 1995 the accountants took over from the engineers I
> reckon. My 1993 E34 520i Touring has now 353866 miles on the clock.
> The oil comes out as clean as it went in (engine/gearbox & diff). The
> emissions are still within factory specs and it's still on the
> original clutch.. I just can't fault it (except it hasn't got the V8
> fitted). It does need a few more bhp (the 2.5 is ideal in this body
> shell), but I can live with it.
> JB
> 
> 

So 'older is better' in this case, then :-) BTW, I thought you said V8s had 
a lot of problems?


-- 
Stuart Sharp

"Stu"  wrote in message
news:Xns96A1DDDE94953nobodyhomecom@216.196.109.144...

> "AstraVanMan"  wrote in
> news:HvaGe.17215$Hd4.5620@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net:
>
> >
> > Well the 525 24v models (all the later ones) have 192bhp, and the
> > later VANOS ones are even better, and pretty good on fuel too.
> > Definitely worth a look IMHO.
> >
>
> That's a variable valve timing thingamyjig, isn't it? The later one in the
> E39 will probably fall out of my range, but the late E34 versions are
quite
> a realistic proposition. These have an earlier version of the vanos too,
> don't they.
>
> Pity the diesel version isn't faster, in autotrader there's an N reg 525
> derv with FSH for 1500, and it's only 15 miles down the road!
>
> BTW, what's the  spec like on the E34? I wanted cruise, but haven't seen
it
> menitoned  in any E34 ads, even on the SE.


I've an idea it's mainly down to the first buyers specification.
Mine, a 525iSE,  has Cruise, a/c, sports seats, (gives drop down centre
armrests, and electrically adjusted lumbar support) heated seats, heated
electric mirrors. No s/s roof, but with a/c who wants it. It also has the
single Vanos M52TU engine.
At 80mph on the m/way it just purrs at less than 3000 revs.

The previous owner, (baught it in 1996. I'm only the 3rd owner, and it had
an unbroken BMW service history up to the date I baught it) had M-tech
lowered suspension fitted by a BMW dealer in 2002, and fitted 17" M-Tech
wheels himself. Together they give the car a firmer ride, but that's just
how I like my cars.
Mike.

"Stu"  wrote in message
news:Xns96A1E324AA2CEnobodyhomecom@216.196.109.144...

> "JB"  wrote in news:3kt051FvrrlcU1@individual.net:
>
> > I've had the misfortune to work on several E39s. Many with very low
> > miles too. All sorts of very un-BMW like faults. More like Ford or GM
> > type faults. The e34 is still probably the best of them all for build
> > quality. After 1995 the accountants took over from the engineers I
> > reckon. My 1993 E34 520i Touring has now 353866 miles on the clock.
> > The oil comes out as clean as it went in (engine/gearbox & diff). The
> > emissions are still within factory specs and it's still on the
> > original clutch.. I just can't fault it (except it hasn't got the V8
> > fitted). It does need a few more bhp (the 2.5 is ideal in this body
> > shell), but I can live with it.
> > JB
> >
> >
> So 'older is better' in this case, then :-) BTW, I thought you said V8s
had
> a lot of problems?


They're the ones with the Nikasil bores, but if it got the BMW recall it
would have been fixed. Something to check for if you fancy a 530, or 540.
Mike.

>> > Another advantage over a Saab is that the driving wheels are at the
>> > right end. :-)
>>
>> I must confess, I've never owned a RWD car (or even driven one, unless a
>> Ford Transit counts ;-), so I don't know how much of a big deal this is.
>> But yes, I agree that RWD, in principal, is the best format for any big
>> car.
>
> If you're a keen driver you'll really appreciate the different handling of 
> a
> RWD car.
> Personally I'd never buy a FWD car. Torque steer. Understeer. Wheelspin.
> Limited lock. All too much for me.


Wheelspin?  If you're a keen enough driver you can easily wheelspin a RWD 
car :-)

-- 
Peter

"You're not a real UKRCMer until you've owned a Rover 620ti."

AstraVanMan wrote:

>>>> Another advantage over a Saab is that the driving wheels are at the
>>>> right end. :-)
>>>
>>> I must confess, I've never owned a RWD car (or even driven one,
>>> unless a Ford Transit counts ;-), so I don't know how much of a big
>>> deal this is. But yes, I agree that RWD, in principal, is the best
>>> format for any big car.
>>
>> If you're a keen driver you'll really appreciate the different
>> handling of a
>> RWD car.
>> Personally I'd never buy a FWD car. Torque steer. Understeer.
>> Wheelspin. Limited lock. All too much for me.
>
> Wheelspin?  If you're a keen enough driver you can easily wheelspin a
> RWD car :-)


And understeer :-)

My Mazda 323 has a tighter lock than my Supra.

But the minimal turning circle on the Supra is determined by the 
wheelbase...

>> Well the 525 24v models (all the later ones) have 192bhp, and the
>> later VANOS ones are even better, and pretty good on fuel too.
>> Definitely worth a look IMHO.
>
> That's a variable valve timing thingamyjig, isn't it?


Yup, think so.


> The later one in the
> E39 will probably fall out of my range, but the late E34 versions are 
> quite
> a realistic proposition. These have an earlier version of the vanos too,
> don't they.


Don't know - AFAIK the earlier versions of the VANOS engine were the ones 
without it!


> Pity the diesel version isn't faster, in autotrader there's an N reg 525
> derv with FSH for 1500, and it's only 15 miles down the road!


They're crap on fuel for a diesel, unless you're doing all around town 
stuff.  I reckon you'd struggle to better a 5mpg difference in just general 
motorway work, 2.5TD compared to petrol.


> BTW, what's the  spec like on the E34? I wanted cruise, but haven't seen 
> it
> menitoned  in any E34 ads, even on the SE.


Like a lot of BM things it was an option (I think), so just a matter of 
hunting one down that's had lots spent on options when new.

-- 
Peter

"You're not a real UKRCMer until you've owned a Rover 620ti."

In article <PfnGe.51491$Pf3.889@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, me@home.com 
says...

> AstraVanMan wrote:
> >>>> Another advantage over a Saab is that the driving wheels are at the
> >>>> right end. :-)
> >>>
> >>> I must confess, I've never owned a RWD car (or even driven one,
> >>> unless a Ford Transit counts ;-), so I don't know how much of a big
> >>> deal this is. But yes, I agree that RWD, in principal, is the best
> >>> format for any big car.
> >>
> >> If you're a keen driver you'll really appreciate the different
> >> handling of a
> >> RWD car.
> >> Personally I'd never buy a FWD car. Torque steer. Understeer.
> >> Wheelspin. Limited lock. All too much for me.
> >
> > Wheelspin?  If you're a keen enough driver you can easily wheelspin a
> > RWD car :-)
> 
> And understeer :-)
> 
> My Mazda 323 has a tighter lock than my Supra.
> 
> But the minimal turning circle on the Supra is determined by the 
> wheelbase...


Whereas my TR7 has a far tighter circle than SWMBO's Citroen C3, and the 
wheelbases are very similar.

-- 
James Dore,
IT Officer,
New College
james.dore@new / it-support@new

JB wrote:

> 
> "Stu"  wrote in message
> news:Xns96A1A23FE8729nobodyhomecom@216.196.109.144...
> >>>> Any thoughts much appreciated.
> >>>
> >>> I wouldn't have thought turbo failure would be your biggest problem.
> >>> Have browse some the SAAB forums for camchain failure! Nasty &
> >>> expensive. Get a BMW E32 735/740/750.or E34 535/540  cheap as chips
> >>> and *all* the toys and there are a surprising number of manuals
> >>> about. most people want the autos for some reason.
> >>
> >> I've had a fair few high miler saabs - never had a chain fail, (or
> >> turbo for that matter) 200K+ miles is normal.  Early 90's 9k's fully
> >> loaded can be picked up for a few hundred quid, grab a bargain!
> >>
> >>
> > Thanks for the opinions. With a timing chain, I would normally expect it
> > to
> > start rattling some time before complete failure occured, in which case I
> > would  change it ( or get someone else to) straight away. I wouldn't
> > expect
> > a chain to be too dear, but a replacement turbo might be!
> 
> A camchain replacement on a 9000 will set you back much more than the car is
> worth. It is not a pleasant job at all.


But the replacement is rare. The chain will eventually rattle, but broken 
chains are unheard of. The chain has no set replacement mileage. 

In general, the Saab 9000 CSE is extremely well build and tough car; in fact
it's something like 'they don't make them like that anymore...'. That was
probably why Saab didn't make money at the time. Best car seats I've known.

"AstraVanMan"  wrote in message
news:jhnGe.14094$YL5.8033@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...

> >> Well the 525 24v models (all the later ones) have 192bhp, and the
> >> later VANOS ones are even better, and pretty good on fuel too.
> >> Definitely worth a look IMHO.
> >
> > That's a variable valve timing thingamyjig, isn't it?
>
> Yup, think so.

Correct.

> > The later one in the
> > E39 will probably fall out of my range, but the late E34 versions are
> > quite
> > a realistic proposition. These have an earlier version of the vanos too,
> > don't they.
>
> Don't know - AFAIK the earlier versions of the VANOS engine were the ones
> without it!


Without what?
I could be wrong but I believe all VANOS engines have VANOS. :-)
I think you mean earlier E34's, with the 2.5 M50 engine didn't have VANOS.
The M50TU engine, fitted after about '93 I believe, had a single VANOS.
Mike.

"AstraVanMan"  wrote in message
news:EenGe.14092$YL5.3446@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...

> >> > Another advantage over a Saab is that the driving wheels are at the
> >> > right end. :-)
> >>
> >> I must confess, I've never owned a RWD car (or even driven one, unless
a
> >> Ford Transit counts ;-), so I don't know how much of a big deal this
is.
> >> But yes, I agree that RWD, in principal, is the best format for any big
> >> car.
> >
> > If you're a keen driver you'll really appreciate the different handling
of
> > a
> > RWD car.
> > Personally I'd never buy a FWD car. Torque steer. Understeer. Wheelspin.
> > Limited lock. All too much for me.
>
> Wheelspin?  If you're a keen enough driver you can easily wheelspin a RWD
> car :-)


Not that easily, unless the car is fairly powerful, it's wet, naff tyres,
slippery etc.
I don't count revving the engine and dropping the clutch. It's not unheard
of to break the diff under that sort of treatment.
Thing is cars tend to squat under acceleration. With RWD it puts more weight
on the driving wheels, making wheelspin more difficult.
No way could I get wheelspin on my 525i on a dry road. Even in the wet, it's
difficult on a good road surface.
Mike.

"PC Paul"  wrote in message
news:PfnGe.51491$Pf3.889@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

> AstraVanMan wrote:
> >>>> Another advantage over a Saab is that the driving wheels are at the
> >>>> right end. :-)
> >>>
> >>> I must confess, I've never owned a RWD car (or even driven one,
> >>> unless a Ford Transit counts ;-), so I don't know how much of a big
> >>> deal this is. But yes, I agree that RWD, in principal, is the best
> >>> format for any big car.
> >>
> >> If you're a keen driver you'll really appreciate the different
> >> handling of a
> >> RWD car.
> >> Personally I'd never buy a FWD car. Torque steer. Understeer.
> >> Wheelspin. Limited lock. All too much for me.
> >
> > Wheelspin?  If you're a keen enough driver you can easily wheelspin a
> > RWD car :-)
>
> And understeer :-)


Certainly, but not to the same degree as most FWD cars.
IME of RWD cars, the back end usually goes, before u/s becomes a problem.
:-)

>
> My Mazda 323 has a tighter lock than my Supra.
>
> But the minimal turning circle on the Supra is determined by the
> wheelbase...


The turning circle is governed by the lock though. My 5 series and Rover SD1
have smaller turning circles than my 4WD Celica, yet their wheelbases are
greater.
Not really a problem, until you get into tight manouvering situations, or
want to make a quick U turn.
Mike.

>> Yup, think so.
>
> Correct.
>
>> > The later one in the
>> > E39 will probably fall out of my range, but the late E34 versions are
>> > quite
>> > a realistic proposition. These have an earlier version of the vanos 
>> > too,
>> > don't they.
>>
>> Don't know - AFAIK the earlier versions of the VANOS engine were the ones
>> without it!
>
> Without what?
> I could be wrong but I believe all VANOS engines have VANOS. :-)
> I think you mean earlier E34's, with the 2.5 M50 engine didn't have VANOS.


Yup, it was what's known as sarcasm.  Common in sarcastic twats.


> The M50TU engine, fitted after about '93 I believe, had a single VANOS.


How do you mean "single VANOS" ?  Is there a double VANOS?

-- 
Peter

"You're not a real UKRCMer until you've owned a Rover 620ti."

"AstraVanMan"  wrote in message
news:3euGe.16519$Fx3.15847@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...

> >> Yup, think so.
> >
> > Correct.
> >
> >> > The later one in the
> >> > E39 will probably fall out of my range, but the late E34 versions are
> >> > quite
> >> > a realistic proposition. These have an earlier version of the vanos
> >> > too,
> >> > don't they.
> >>
> >> Don't know - AFAIK the earlier versions of the VANOS engine were the
ones
> >> without it!
> >
> > Without what?
> > I could be wrong but I believe all VANOS engines have VANOS. :-)
> > I think you mean earlier E34's, with the 2.5 M50 engine didn't have
VANOS.
>
> Yup, it was what's known as sarcasm.  Common in sarcastic twats.
>
> > The M50TU engine, fitted after about '93 I believe, had a single VANOS.
>
> How do you mean "single VANOS" ?  Is there a double VANOS?


Yup. Seems like BMW call the variable valve timing unit a VANOS.
On later 525's only one was fitted on the intake camshaft. Up to about '96 I
believe.
Even later cars with the M52TU, M54,  S52, S54, S62 engines, had a VANOS
unit on both camshafts. Hence Double VANOS.
There are other engines with Double VANOS as well but those'll do for now.
:-)
Mike.

>> > The M50TU engine, fitted after about '93 I believe, had a single VANOS.
>>
>> How do you mean "single VANOS" ?  Is there a double VANOS?
>
> Yup. Seems like BMW call the variable valve timing unit a VANOS.
> On later 525's only one was fitted on the intake camshaft. Up to about '96 
> I
> believe.
> Even later cars with the M52TU, M54,  S52, S54, S62 engines, had a VANOS
> unit on both camshafts. Hence Double VANOS.
> There are other engines with Double VANOS as well but those'll do for now.
> :-)


I was just about to point out that there won't be two camshafts as it's a 
straight 6, not a V6, then I realised that I'd look like a fool, so I'll 
stay quiet instead :-)

-- 
Peter

"You're not a real UKRCMer until you've owned a Rover 620ti."

> > A camchain replacement on a 9000 will set you back much more than the
> > car is worth. It is not a pleasant job at all.
> >
> I assume it's not possible with the engine in-situ, then?
>

Can be done with the engine in situ, in fact some simply split the chain,
then join the new chain to the old one, roll it into the engine, then rejoin
the new chain when it appears from the top of the engine again.
Better to get the timing cover off (remove offside wheel and arch liner for
access) and replace the sprockets, tensioners and guides at the same time.
If its a balance shaft engine, chances are the balance shaft chain and
sprockets will need changing at the same time.
It's not a difficult job, but is a little fiddly and time consuming.

> I'm feeling a bit bored with the Primera (98 2.0GT) lately, and am
> considering selling up and buying something a bit quicker and more
> luxurious. I can't afford much for the cost of changing, so Im looking for
> something of similar age (probably slightly older).
> The particular model I'm considering is a late SAAB 9000CSE Turbo
> (preferably a 200bhp version). These seem to have a decent reputation yet
> depriciate nicely. I like the idea of a turbo because I want more grunt at
> lower revs - the Primera is quite poor in this respect and tends to need
at
> least 4000rpm for decent acceleration. MPG is of little concern as I have
> very low mileage - my workplace is about 15 minutes walk away :-). I'm
> after plenty of toys, too - especially cruise & climate. A decent interior
> would be nice, too - the Primera's is crap, especially the leather.
> Any thoughts on the SAAB or other suggestions, please? Anything special to
> look for when viewing one? Given the age I would be buying at, longevity
is
> my main concern, and avoiding costly faults (e.g. turbo failure). I would
> probably give autos a wide berth, mainly for those reasons.
>

Gearboxes are a weak point, auto or manual.

The autobox will rarely last 100,000miles, the manual box tends to loose
syncro on 2nd after similar mileage.

"Mike G"  wrote in message 
news:42e9257f$0$3491$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...

>
> "Stu"  wrote in message
> news:Xns96A1C12AB3857nobodyhomecom@216.196.109.144...
>> "Mike G"  wrote in
>
>> > I have a '94 525i SE. 155k The body and interior can only be described
>> > as virtually perfect. Excellent original p/w without any scratches. No
>> > dents. No
>> > rust. Seats, (cloth) and interior have no marks or signs of wear, and
>> > it's mechanically faultless. Engine and auto transmission are all
>> > original. I don't think BMW's like mine are that rare TBH. IMO they
>> > are an excellent s/h buy.
>> > Pics at http://photos.yahoo.com/metieruk if you're interested.
>> > Cost me 2500 18 months ago, and so far hasn't cost me penny in
>> > maintenance, apart from a service. For the sort of money you're
>> > considering, you can buy something much later with a lower mileage.
>> > Mike.
>> >
>> >
>> A very nice car indeed! I notice there's a lot more 525s around, but I'm
>> not sure that's enough power for me - I want something quick. For a car
>> so heavy, I was aiming at least 200bhp.
>
> The M52TU 2.5 engine develops 192bhp. Torque 181 lbft at 4200rpm. The 2.8
> develops 193BHP but the torque is better. 207 lbft at 3950.
> I wouldn't say my 525 is exactly slow. 0-60 is around 9secs, but it is an
> auto.
> I would expect a 528, 0-60 to be less than 8 secs.
> Top speed for both engines in the 5 series is over 140mph.
> At 80mph on the m/w, engine is very quiet and relaxed. IIRC about 2500rpm.
> Very little road noise either.
> Another advantage over a Saab is that the driving wheels are at the right
> end. :-)



True, but the 9000 doesn't feel like a typical FWD car, the old 900 was even 
better - longitudinal engine and equal length driveshafts meant little or no 
torquesteer.

"Mike G"  wrote in message 
news:42ea6ab2$1$34994$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...

>
> "AstraVanMan"  wrote in message
> news:EenGe.14092$YL5.3446@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>> >> > Another advantage over a Saab is that the driving wheels are at the
>> >> > right end. :-)
>> >>
>> >> I must confess, I've never owned a RWD car (or even driven one, unless
> a
>> >> Ford Transit counts ;-), so I don't know how much of a big deal this
> is.
>> >> But yes, I agree that RWD, in principal, is the best format for any 
>> >> big
>> >> car.
>> >
>> > If you're a keen driver you'll really appreciate the different handling
> of
>> > a
>> > RWD car.
>> > Personally I'd never buy a FWD car. Torque steer. Understeer. 
>> > Wheelspin.
>> > Limited lock. All too much for me.
>>
>> Wheelspin?  If you're a keen enough driver you can easily wheelspin a RWD
>> car :-)
>
> Not that easily, unless the car is fairly powerful, it's wet, naff tyres,
> slippery etc.
> I don't count revving the engine and dropping the clutch. It's not unheard
> of to break the diff under that sort of treatment.
> Thing is cars tend to squat under acceleration. With RWD it puts more 
> weight
> on the driving wheels, making wheelspin more difficult.
> No way could I get wheelspin on my 525i on a dry road. Even in the wet, 
> it's
> difficult on a good road surface.
> Mike.


I could wheelspin a 2 litre sierra in the dry - you weren't trying ;-) much 
worse infact pulling away from wet roundabouts than my saab!

Mike G wrote:

	[...]


> Not really a problem, until you get into tight manouvering
> situations, or want to make a quick U turn.


With RWD you have the option of the throttle assisted U-turn a.k.a.
hemi-donut... =8)



A

Mike G wrote:

	[...]


> No way could I get wheelspin on my 525i on a dry road. Even in the
> wet, it's difficult on a good road surface.


In a straight line in the dry my 340bhp E39 ALPINA B10 just chirps its
tyres and goes - TC off or on, not a flicker - the E30 was the last even
faintly tail happy BMW...

You still get throttle adjustable steering, but nothing lurid.  :)



A

"john"  wrote in message
news:9RzGe.22153$Ag3.9714@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...

>
> "Mike G"  wrote in message
> news:42ea6ab2$1$34994$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
> >
> > "AstraVanMan"  wrote in message
> > news:EenGe.14092$YL5.3446@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
> >> >> > Another advantage over a Saab is that the driving wheels are at
the
> >> >> > right end. :-)
> >> >>
> >> >> I must confess, I've never owned a RWD car (or even driven one,
unless
> > a
> >> >> Ford Transit counts ;-), so I don't know how much of a big deal this
> > is.
> >> >> But yes, I agree that RWD, in principal, is the best format for any
> >> >> big
> >> >> car.
> >> >
> >> > If you're a keen driver you'll really appreciate the different
handling
> > of
> >> > a
> >> > RWD car.
> >> > Personally I'd never buy a FWD car. Torque steer. Understeer.
> >> > Wheelspin.
> >> > Limited lock. All too much for me.
> >>
> >> Wheelspin?  If you're a keen enough driver you can easily wheelspin a
RWD
> >> car :-)
> >
> > Not that easily, unless the car is fairly powerful, it's wet, naff
tyres,
> > slippery etc.
> > I don't count revving the engine and dropping the clutch. It's not
unheard
> > of to break the diff under that sort of treatment.
> > Thing is cars tend to squat under acceleration. With RWD it puts more
> > weight
> > on the driving wheels, making wheelspin more difficult.
> > No way could I get wheelspin on my 525i on a dry road. Even in the wet,
> > it's
> > difficult on a good road surface.
> > Mike.
>
> I could wheelspin a 2 litre sierra in the dry - you weren't trying ;-)
much
> worse infact pulling away from wet roundabouts than my saab!


The Sierra had a lot in common with the Cortina though. Too light at the
back end. I remember stories of Cortina owners who used to put ballast in
the boot to get a better front and rear weight balance. Not good RWD cars
IMO.

AFAIK a 5 series has near 50/50 weight distribution between the front and
rear axles. Ideal to make a good drivers car.
On a wet roundabout, I can still get the back to step out though. :-)
Mike.

"Alistair J Murray"  wrote in message
news:p7crr2-58f.ln1@florin.fluffy...

> Mike G wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > No way could I get wheelspin on my 525i on a dry road. Even in the
> > wet, it's difficult on a good road surface.
>
> In a straight line in the dry my 340bhp E39 ALPINA B10 just chirps its
> tyres and goes - TC off or on, not a flicker - the E30 was the last even
> faintly tail happy BMW...
>
> You still get throttle adjustable steering, but nothing lurid.  :)


Except when you really boot it. :-)
Mike.

Mike G wrote:

> "Alistair J Murray"  wrote in message 
> news:p7crr2-58f.ln1@florin.fluffy...

	[...]

>> In a straight line in the dry my 340bhp E39 ALPINA B10 just chirps
>> its tyres and goes - TC off or on, not a flicker - the E30 was the
>> last even faintly tail happy BMW...
>> 
>> You still get throttle adjustable steering, but nothing lurid.  :)
> 
> Except when you really boot it. :-)


Even with the TC off it needs real brutality to unstick the tail in the dry.

Wet cobbles however...   :)




A