Anyone moved from 3.0 Si to 35is?

I don't want to get into the old M versus 35iS debate again. But I will say that for some of us, who might want the same or better performance than our M's, the lack of a normally aspirated power plant in the E89 is a major issue. I don't like turbos, I don't want a turbo, therefore an E89 is not a car I could consider owning. I have considered swapping to a 997 Turbo in the past, which is much quicker than the M, but it is characterless, the exhaust and engine sound is bland and it's just not "special". I want high rev's, a great sounding engine that thrives on 7,900 rpm, a linear power curve, and a raw sports car feel. The E89 doesn't give me any of that. However I accept that the E89 is a much more appealing car to some people than the E85/6 were. You'd hardly call it a commercial success though. They've sold in much smaller quantities than their predecessor did.

For those interested, there are three 35iS's on the BMW site today. It's a lot of car for the money they are asking, if they are your thing. :thumbsup:
 
I think the M vs 3.5iS is the same as the Alpina vs M. They're different tools for different jobs.

I'd quite like a 3.5iS as a mile muncher.
 
Stuart Truman said:
I think the M vs 3.5iS is the same as the Alpina vs M. They're different tools for different jobs.

I'd quite like a 3.5iS as a mile muncher.
Click to expand...

Agree totally Stu. I don't think BMW ever intended them to be considered in the same vein, although if that is true, it was probably naive on their part.
 
Times are changing. Tastes are changing. Pure drivers cars are becoming more and more of a niche product sadly.

Greater and greater emissions and economy targets are sealing the fates of high displacement, revvy NA power plants sadly. Virtually all manufacturers are going down the forced induction route now for performance cars - look at M division and even Honda.

The 35is is expensive, out of vogue for the mainstream and has been launched throughout a time of unprecedented economic uncertainty. Little wonder they haven't sold many.

It's surprising that residuals are so strong really for the 35is.
 
original guvnor said:
I don't want to get into the old M versus 35iS debate again. But I will say that for some of us, who might want the same or better performance than our M's, the lack of a normally aspirated power plant in the E89 is a major issue. I don't like turbos, I don't want a turbo, therefore an E89 is not a car I could consider owning. I have considered swapping to a 997 Turbo in the past, which is much quicker than the M, but it is characterless, the exhaust and engine sound is bland and it's just not "special". I want high rev's, a great sounding engine that thrives on 7,900 rpm, a linear power curve, and a raw sports car feel. The E89 doesn't give me any of that. However I accept that the E89 is a much more appealing car to some people than the E85/6 were. You'd hardly call it a commercial success though. They've sold in much smaller quantities than their predecessor did.

For those interested, there are three 35iS's on the BMW site today. It's a lot of car for the money they are asking, if they are your thing. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

The main attraction for me to the 35i is the fact it's a turbo engine. The N54 has got to be one of the most tuned engines out there.

I'm coming from the 3 series world and I've watched in envy for 4 years of the 335i tuning options. The idea that you can just plug in a JB4 and start pushing 380bhp is magical.

Is the E89 3.0 not the N/A N52 power plant? It seemed the choice for turbo haters in the 3 series. Nice smooth engine.
 
I bought my first petrol engine Turbo car way back in 1980 and can't really see what there is to dislike with them. I would happily upgrade from my NA 3.0l to the 35is - Just try telling "her" why I need a 35is :D
 
I'm not knocking turbo engines per se but I find them dull in comparison to a sweet NA engine. To me there isn't much fun when maximum power is delivered at sub 6k revs as it is on most turbos. I'm sure others feel differently.

Oh well I'm in a minority probably.
 
I have both, lol,

IMG_0973_zpsbe35c08d.jpg

The 35is is a lovely car, good on a long journey, but my M3 is nicer. But my Z4M is much more alive, but I have had a few mods, lol.
 
original guvnor said:
I'm not knocking turbo engines per se but I find them dull in comparison to a sweet NA engine. To me there isn't much fun when maximum power is delivered at sub 6k revs as it is on most turbos. I'm sure others feel differently.

Oh well I'm in a minority probably.
Click to expand...

Having both, totally agree with your comments. A N/A engine is a screamer, but there are benefits from turbos, but I have gone down the N/A tune route for both M's. Currently looking at a 4.4/5 stroker conversion and head work on the M3 and a wide-body for Z4M.

However this will make you laugh, I actually drive the 35is in auto mode, don't even use the paddles.... I must be getting old, lol.
 
I test drove a 3.5is today at a dealer closeish to my house. Here are my observations against my E86M.

Lovely noise on startup, but most of the exhaust gas comes out of one side initially, which makes it look a bit silly and fake. Is that normal?
Interior is nice, probably more grown up that the 86. This car was fairly low spec though!

The drive: Well I found the gearbox a bit dim witted in auto, but very good once I used sport and in manual mode. Very quick shifts and smooth. I wasn't a massive fan of the steering which felt light and not very responsive, but it was fine. On a cruise down the dual carriageway, the car was lovely. Quiet, low engine revs and smooth suspension. Much better than the 86.

On booting it around a roundabout and back onto the dual carriageway, it was blatantly obvious that it needs an LSD. Hard acceleration in second with a slightly greasy road in a straight line had the T/C light on a lot. I did the same in the 86 on the exact same bit of road beforehand as a benchmark and it didn't come on once. It also squirmed a lot which the 86 didnt, but this would have been linked to the lack of traction I guess. I don't think it's a massive issue as I believe they can be fitted for a reasonable cost.

Brakes seemed fine, maybe a bit snatchy at low speed, but probably because I was not used to it.

This car was an 11 plate with 12k miles on at 28k. Would I swap mine considering the price difference: No chance.
Would I swap to it if they were equally priced? No, definitely not.

I posted the above as observations, not to start an argument. The 3.5is is a great car, but too soft as a natural upgrade of an e86 in my opinion. I think for me, it would have to be am M3 if I was staying with BMW.

If anyone would like any more specific observations, please feel free to ask.
 
Well at least you've got it out of your system and it would also seem that you have done a decent back to back appraisal. :thumbsup:
I think we all have our requirements from our cars and what will suit one won't suit another!

I did a similar test when I had a fancy for a Morgan some years ago and the differences between my (then E85) were just too significant for me to consider the change.
 
Oh and I didn't think there was anything at all special about the engine (it's very good, but not very special). Just a powerful refined petrol engine, exactly what you would expect to find in a modern BMW.
 
An expected outcome. You're comparing two cars with very different intended purposes and markets. From the very outset bmw's primary remit for this car was to make it a better daily driver than any prior model and that's what they delivered. It was part of doodad van holy donks launch speech. It was never designed to be an 'M' as the larger market doesn't want that.
 
Maniac said:
An expected outcome. You're comparing two cars with very different intended purposes and markets. From the very outset bmw's primary remit for this car was to make it a better daily driver than any prior model and that's what they delivered. It was part of doodad van holy donks launch speech. It was never designed to be an 'M' as the larger market doesn't want that.
Click to expand...


Yep, agreed and I imagine it would do a great job.

I also get why many people opt for the smaller engines too.
 
original guvnor said:
I don't want to get into the old M versus 35iS debate again. But I will say that for some of us, who might want the same or better performance than our M's, the lack of a normally aspirated power plant in the E89 is a major issue. I don't like turbos, I don't want a turbo, therefore an E89 is not a car I could consider owning. I have considered swapping to a 997 Turbo in the past, which is much quicker than the M, but it is characterless, the exhaust and engine sound is bland and it's just not "special". I want high rev's, a great sounding engine that thrives on 7,900 rpm, a linear power curve, and a raw sports car feel. The E89 doesn't give me any of that. However I accept that the E89 is a much more appealing car to some people than the E85/6 were. You'd hardly call it a commercial success though. They've sold in much smaller quantities than their predecessor did.

For those interested, there are three 35iS's on the BMW site today. It's a lot of car for the money they are asking, if they are your thing. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

maybe try the 35i it doesn't feel like a turbo engine as its such low boost and two turbos
 
Well at least I'm not the only one:-

ebe7aja6.jpg
 
TitanTim said:
Technology moves on and manufacturers can't afford to sit in the past.
Click to expand...


I don't think they ever stopped developing automotive technology.

ie 3.0 Ford engine in the 70's 110bhp + 20mpg
3.0 BMW N/A engine of today 250 bhp +35mpg


Auto Gearbox 70's = three speed and slow changes
Today = 6,7, & 8 speed boxes with fast changes

The list goes on and on and the product costs less in real terms!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom