BMW E46 3 Series
adz13091982
10-23-2008, 07:55 AM
Does anyone know of a 1:24 BMW E46 3 Series Kit?
sjelic
10-23-2008, 08:59 AM
Quick Skins used to have racing kit E46, no civil version as a kit.
MPWR
10-23-2008, 09:00 AM
No.
sanzvictor
10-23-2008, 01:14 PM
Quick Skins used to have racing kit E46, no civil version as a kit.
Any good source for that Quick Skins kits?
Any good source for that Quick Skins kits?
sjelic
10-24-2008, 02:33 AM
Any good source for that Quick Skins kits?
try to ask here, maybe they can help http://islandcollectibles.net/
try to ask here, maybe they can help http://islandcollectibles.net/
360spider
10-24-2008, 02:39 PM
Sadly there are no (not a single freaking one) kits of modern BMWs in plastic. I think e36 and Z3 were the last ones that were kitted. Shame really.
MPWR
10-24-2008, 04:23 PM
Shame really.
Probably so. But not so big a shame as the fact that lately Munich can bother to make anything worth kitting in plastic. :sleep: :disappoin
Even the new One is just another oversized, overweight, overpowered and overpriced 'luxury performance coupe'. :sleeping: Can't even bring myself to bother to test drive one.
Probably so. But not so big a shame as the fact that lately Munich can bother to make anything worth kitting in plastic. :sleep: :disappoin
Even the new One is just another oversized, overweight, overpowered and overpriced 'luxury performance coupe'. :sleeping: Can't even bring myself to bother to test drive one.
360spider
10-24-2008, 04:42 PM
Probably so. But not so big a shame as the fact that lately Munich can bother to make anything worth kitting in plastic. :sleep: :disappoin
Even the new One is just another oversized, overweight, overpowered and overpriced 'luxury performance coupe'. :sleeping: Can't even bring myself to bother to test drive one.
Well... have you driven any of the latest ///Ms? Both M Roadster and especialy M Coupe are fantastic, and look IMO incredible. M6 is simply astonishing, and I love the looks (obviously, my daily driver is 645Ci). I really like latest BMW design more then "classic" BMW design, and I think every M car of late is worth kitting in plastic.
Even the new One is just another oversized, overweight, overpowered and overpriced 'luxury performance coupe'. :sleeping: Can't even bring myself to bother to test drive one.
Well... have you driven any of the latest ///Ms? Both M Roadster and especialy M Coupe are fantastic, and look IMO incredible. M6 is simply astonishing, and I love the looks (obviously, my daily driver is 645Ci). I really like latest BMW design more then "classic" BMW design, and I think every M car of late is worth kitting in plastic.
wadny
10-24-2008, 05:42 PM
I have the Quickskins kit, and it is an E36, not a 46. Nice kit, though. The best I've been able to do for an E46 (I drive a 330i) is a diecast kit of a 328 coupe that I picked up on eBay a while ago. It's not bad, and could be turned into a decent model with some work.
Larry
Larry
MPWR
10-24-2008, 09:54 PM
Difference in taste, I guess. :rolleyes: I just can't get into them, and it's definitely not for a lack of trying.
I spent Saturday helping a friend swap a new set of Bilsteins onto his M'ster (the only Z4 M Roadster in the US on Bilsteins, he'll tell anyone who will listen). It rocks- great power, terrific handling (better now)- and it's as heavy as my M3. :dunno: Why?! (And it's just- ugly. :uhoh: )
BMW just can't be bothered to build a sportscar anymore. Everything is weighted down with lux crap- it's like for the last 10 years, BMW has tried as hard as it could to become Mercedes. Sure the power and handling is good for large cars- but why only large cars?
My wife is looking for a car, and we've recently concluded to our surprise and dismay that there's nothing BMW is making that we would consider owning. OK, maybe the Mini- if it were rear wheel drive.
Does your Six have a dipstick?
I spent Saturday helping a friend swap a new set of Bilsteins onto his M'ster (the only Z4 M Roadster in the US on Bilsteins, he'll tell anyone who will listen). It rocks- great power, terrific handling (better now)- and it's as heavy as my M3. :dunno: Why?! (And it's just- ugly. :uhoh: )
BMW just can't be bothered to build a sportscar anymore. Everything is weighted down with lux crap- it's like for the last 10 years, BMW has tried as hard as it could to become Mercedes. Sure the power and handling is good for large cars- but why only large cars?
My wife is looking for a car, and we've recently concluded to our surprise and dismay that there's nothing BMW is making that we would consider owning. OK, maybe the Mini- if it were rear wheel drive.
Does your Six have a dipstick?
360spider
10-24-2008, 11:28 PM
Difference in taste, I guess. :rolleyes: I just can't get into them, and it's definitely not for a lack of trying.
I spent Saturday helping a friend swap a new set of Bilsteins onto his M'ster (the only Z4 M Roadster in the US on Bilsteins, he'll tell anyone who will listen). It rocks- great power, terrific handling (better now)- and it's as heavy as my M3. :dunno: Why?! (And it's just- ugly. :uhoh: )
BMW just can't be bothered to build a sportscar anymore. Everything is weighted down with lux crap- it's like for the last 10 years, BMW has tried as hard as it could to become Mercedes. Sure the power and handling is good for large cars- but why only large cars?
My wife is looking for a car, and we've recently concluded to our surprise and dismay that there's nothing BMW is making that we would consider owning. OK, maybe the Mini- if it were rear wheel drive.
Does your Six have a dipstick?
Why does the weight matter? I hear it all the time, heavy, heavy. Cars get better mileage, more efficient engines, better handling, less emissions, and in addition to all that they are safer, faster, more luxurious, and... recyclable. So why does the weight matter? That "heavy" M roadster can do everything E30, E36, and E46 M3 can do - and more - better, faster, using less fuel. Weight here is irrelevant.
BMW does build sportscars. Not barebone racecars, but sportscars. Yes, they are luxurious (depends on your tastes), very complicated and full of gizmos. That is what market wants, and if BMW didn't build these cars they would be long gone.
And who does really build a "real" sportscar? You can say that Ferrari can't be bothered to build a sportscar anymore - all the cars they designed and built lately are overweight overpowered luxurious money making pieces of machinery. They are nothing compared to the 62 GTO, hell they not even close to F40. Not a single mainstream/big car manufacturer builds a sportscar anymore if I follow your logic.
And yes, Six has a dipstick - why? I actually had to go to the garage and pop the hood open to check - I have not used a dipstick in like 10 years. I seriously don't understand why would somebody want to change their own oil on a $85K car.
I spent Saturday helping a friend swap a new set of Bilsteins onto his M'ster (the only Z4 M Roadster in the US on Bilsteins, he'll tell anyone who will listen). It rocks- great power, terrific handling (better now)- and it's as heavy as my M3. :dunno: Why?! (And it's just- ugly. :uhoh: )
BMW just can't be bothered to build a sportscar anymore. Everything is weighted down with lux crap- it's like for the last 10 years, BMW has tried as hard as it could to become Mercedes. Sure the power and handling is good for large cars- but why only large cars?
My wife is looking for a car, and we've recently concluded to our surprise and dismay that there's nothing BMW is making that we would consider owning. OK, maybe the Mini- if it were rear wheel drive.
Does your Six have a dipstick?
Why does the weight matter? I hear it all the time, heavy, heavy. Cars get better mileage, more efficient engines, better handling, less emissions, and in addition to all that they are safer, faster, more luxurious, and... recyclable. So why does the weight matter? That "heavy" M roadster can do everything E30, E36, and E46 M3 can do - and more - better, faster, using less fuel. Weight here is irrelevant.
BMW does build sportscars. Not barebone racecars, but sportscars. Yes, they are luxurious (depends on your tastes), very complicated and full of gizmos. That is what market wants, and if BMW didn't build these cars they would be long gone.
And who does really build a "real" sportscar? You can say that Ferrari can't be bothered to build a sportscar anymore - all the cars they designed and built lately are overweight overpowered luxurious money making pieces of machinery. They are nothing compared to the 62 GTO, hell they not even close to F40. Not a single mainstream/big car manufacturer builds a sportscar anymore if I follow your logic.
And yes, Six has a dipstick - why? I actually had to go to the garage and pop the hood open to check - I have not used a dipstick in like 10 years. I seriously don't understand why would somebody want to change their own oil on a $85K car.
ericmaxman
10-25-2008, 07:47 AM
Sadly there are no (not a single freaking one) kits of modern BMWs in plastic. I think e36 and Z3 were the last ones that were kitted. Shame really.
Darn. I do wished that someone out the would make the M3, M5 or just any recent (2005 onwards) kits. Seriously, I like them.
Darn. I do wished that someone out the would make the M3, M5 or just any recent (2005 onwards) kits. Seriously, I like them.
jano11
10-25-2008, 11:13 AM
Why does the weight matter? I hear it all the time, heavy, heavy. Cars get better mileage, more efficient engines, better handling, less emissions, and in addition to all that they are safer, faster, more luxurious, and... recyclable. So why does the weight matter? That "heavy" M roadster can do everything E30, E36, and E46 M3 can do - and more - better, faster, using less fuel. Weight here is irrelevant.
Can't agree with that.
If a car is lighter, than it needs a smaller engine, less fuel, so less emissions to do exactly the same thing as a heavy one.
The only reason to make a car full of useless gadgets (any car in the luxury class has them nowadays) is to be able to earn more money. and I for one don't need more than a car that has good kinetic performance, a radio and maybe air conditioning.
Take the F40 and the Porsche 959, I know which one of them is a real car, and which one is a truckload of gizmos.
Can't agree with that.
If a car is lighter, than it needs a smaller engine, less fuel, so less emissions to do exactly the same thing as a heavy one.
The only reason to make a car full of useless gadgets (any car in the luxury class has them nowadays) is to be able to earn more money. and I for one don't need more than a car that has good kinetic performance, a radio and maybe air conditioning.
Take the F40 and the Porsche 959, I know which one of them is a real car, and which one is a truckload of gizmos.
360spider
10-25-2008, 02:01 PM
Can't agree with that.
If a car is lighter, than it needs a smaller engine, less fuel, so less emissions to do exactly the same thing as a heavy one.
True, but that is IF everything else is being equal. Engine technology has changed so much than heavier cars with bigger engines can actually do stuff lighter cars with smaller engines used to do, more efficiently, etc. Facts don't lie, just look at the figures for above mentioned vehicles.
If a car is lighter, than it needs a smaller engine, less fuel, so less emissions to do exactly the same thing as a heavy one.
True, but that is IF everything else is being equal. Engine technology has changed so much than heavier cars with bigger engines can actually do stuff lighter cars with smaller engines used to do, more efficiently, etc. Facts don't lie, just look at the figures for above mentioned vehicles.
voyageur
10-26-2008, 07:32 AM
Allright fellas,
1. the weight is your enemy
2. the weight is your enemy
3. the weight is your enemy
...but: all of the above only applies if you want to go into the twisties. If you are interested in straight line performance (read: Autobahn/Interstate) only, weight and wind resistance really don't matter because they can be overcome with enough premium fuel fed ponies.
I agree that new "heavy" cars can do everything the old "lightweight" cars can. But, that's if you look at the numbers only. It is a fact that weight translates into higher centrifugal force. This in turn means, that the cornering force needs to be equally higher to compensate the centrifugal force and keep you on the black strip of tarmac in between the weeds.
From my experience I can tell you that it is a lot easier (and thus a lot more fun) to throw a lightweight car into and around bends and corners. You can't beat physics and it really does make a difference if your car is a couple of hundred pounds lighter. Example? Take two cars, one weighing about double than the other, but with a similar power-to-weight ratio. Run them on the same road/track under the same conditions and you'll feel the difference.
depending on the layout of the road/track the outcome will most likely be as follows:
1. only (tight) bends and corners = lighter car will likely be quicker
2. many corners, few strights = lighter car will likely be quicker
3. equal amount of corners and straights = hmmm.... depends :naughty:
4. many straights, few corners = heavier, more powerful car might be quicker
5. many straights, no corners = heavier, more powerful car will likely be quicker
Conclusion:
The twistier the road is - the easier it will be to outrun a heavyweight car with a light and nimble one :biggrin:
Am I talking from experience? Just ask sportracer02, dasWiesel or Mikezibit which manufacturers I worked for as a testdriver.
Cheers
SEB
PS: It is not in my interest to fuel a discussion, just wanted to state some facts :uhoh:
1. the weight is your enemy
2. the weight is your enemy
3. the weight is your enemy
...but: all of the above only applies if you want to go into the twisties. If you are interested in straight line performance (read: Autobahn/Interstate) only, weight and wind resistance really don't matter because they can be overcome with enough premium fuel fed ponies.
I agree that new "heavy" cars can do everything the old "lightweight" cars can. But, that's if you look at the numbers only. It is a fact that weight translates into higher centrifugal force. This in turn means, that the cornering force needs to be equally higher to compensate the centrifugal force and keep you on the black strip of tarmac in between the weeds.
From my experience I can tell you that it is a lot easier (and thus a lot more fun) to throw a lightweight car into and around bends and corners. You can't beat physics and it really does make a difference if your car is a couple of hundred pounds lighter. Example? Take two cars, one weighing about double than the other, but with a similar power-to-weight ratio. Run them on the same road/track under the same conditions and you'll feel the difference.
depending on the layout of the road/track the outcome will most likely be as follows:
1. only (tight) bends and corners = lighter car will likely be quicker
2. many corners, few strights = lighter car will likely be quicker
3. equal amount of corners and straights = hmmm.... depends :naughty:
4. many straights, few corners = heavier, more powerful car might be quicker
5. many straights, no corners = heavier, more powerful car will likely be quicker
Conclusion:
The twistier the road is - the easier it will be to outrun a heavyweight car with a light and nimble one :biggrin:
Am I talking from experience? Just ask sportracer02, dasWiesel or Mikezibit which manufacturers I worked for as a testdriver.
Cheers
SEB
PS: It is not in my interest to fuel a discussion, just wanted to state some facts :uhoh:
jano11
10-26-2008, 07:56 AM
True, but that is IF everything else is being equal. Engine technology has changed so much than heavier cars with bigger engines can actually do stuff lighter cars with smaller engines used to do, more efficiently, etc. Facts don't lie, just look at the figures for above mentioned vehicles.
Sure thing, technology advances.
But why not use this advancement in order to optimize things like fuel consumption and pollution, instead of taking advantage of it to earn more money?
All the improvements we make are useless if we don't use them in an efficient way.
It's like saying that I can now leave the lights on at home and at work all day long because the latest generation low consumption bulbs use only half as much energy as the old ones.:shakehead
Sure thing, technology advances.
But why not use this advancement in order to optimize things like fuel consumption and pollution, instead of taking advantage of it to earn more money?
All the improvements we make are useless if we don't use them in an efficient way.
It's like saying that I can now leave the lights on at home and at work all day long because the latest generation low consumption bulbs use only half as much energy as the old ones.:shakehead
360spider
10-26-2008, 01:57 PM
Sure thing, technology advances.
But why not use this advancement in order to optimize things like fuel consumption and pollution, instead of taking advantage of it to earn more money?
All the improvements we make are useless if we don't use them in an efficient way.
It's like saying that I can now leave the lights on at home and at work all day long because the latest generation low consumption bulbs use only half as much energy as the old ones.:shakehead
I never actually said that. New engines ARE more efficient, and less polluting, and thus, cost more money until the technology that makes them such becomes cheaper and trickles down to lesser vehicles.
But why not use this advancement in order to optimize things like fuel consumption and pollution, instead of taking advantage of it to earn more money?
All the improvements we make are useless if we don't use them in an efficient way.
It's like saying that I can now leave the lights on at home and at work all day long because the latest generation low consumption bulbs use only half as much energy as the old ones.:shakehead
I never actually said that. New engines ARE more efficient, and less polluting, and thus, cost more money until the technology that makes them such becomes cheaper and trickles down to lesser vehicles.
adz13091982
10-26-2008, 02:39 PM
On a happier note - This is my 330cd which has been remapped to 250bhp and 500nm and go's like stink and does 40mpg - Happy days! :grinno:
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y270/adz13091982/n608940119_1086404_5003.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y270/adz13091982/n608940119_1155730_3507.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y270/adz13091982/n608940119_1086406_5972.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y270/adz13091982/n608940119_1086407_6417.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y270/adz13091982/n608940119_1086404_5003.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y270/adz13091982/n608940119_1155730_3507.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y270/adz13091982/n608940119_1086406_5972.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y270/adz13091982/n608940119_1086407_6417.jpg
360spider
10-26-2008, 02:43 PM
Your steering wheel is on the wrong side! :-) J/k, nice ride!
adz13091982
10-26-2008, 02:55 PM
IMO the E46 is the last of the good old BMW's, the new ones look & feel cheap in comparison. Mines 3 years old and it drives as well as it did when new - no squeeks or rattles. The new 330d coupe interior just doesn't look like a £35,000 car.
mazinkaiser
10-29-2008, 12:00 AM
A side question, do you guys know is that any 1/24-scaled E46 M3 wheels or something similar out there? Thx
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025