2011 BMW 135i

File: IMG_2288.jpg (51KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 640x480px

>>17292139

File: IMG_2287.jpg (80KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 640x480px

>>17292139

Also, does that look like the stock suspension? Just asking because I don't want someone's car that's been all fucked out with coilovers and whatnot.

hope u like that interior if ur spending 20k

you will be paying far more than the car is worth. BMW doesn't design cars to last past their warranty anymore.

>>17292270
I actually do like it as far as the layout. Very simple.

Are you talking about quality of the materials?

They have reliability issues and that seems a little high prices. If you can afford it, they're sporty cars though. And blindingly fast.

>>17292338
that interior is for girls anon

>manual
lol

>>17292370
>reliability issues

I thought the N55 engine sort of fixed that infamous HPFP issue. What other common things go wrong?

>>17292382
How, specifically? You don't appreciate the seat color?

>>17292388
I've been driving an automatic for the past year after previously driving manuals for 11 years. I'm bored to death honestly.

>>17292393
It did, but for 20k you can def get a better car.

>>17292410
What alternatives would you recommend? Please don't say G37. I hate Infiniti's.

>>17292418
try for am audi s5 in manual, if you can find it

>>17292468
an S5 would be much more unreliable and very uninspiring to drive in comparison.

>>17292139
I like it apart from the seat color, but each to their own.

That looks like stock rideheight, especially if it has the M-sport chassis. Just take a peak under the fenders when (if) you go look at it, if it has aftermarket parts it'll be easy to spot because they'll be some gaudy color (yellow, bright blue, red etc) and will be branded as something other than BMW.

They did a facelift on the 1-series coupe which I think looks nicer, I can't remember what/if they fixed anything non-cosmetic, but it's worth keeping an eye out for them. Not sure when the facelift was introduced in the US though.

>>17292484
also it would be slower than the 135i
plus remember that the 135i can be easily remapped up to ~350-380hp

>>17292468
>audi s5

I actually test drove a 2011 yesterday at this shitty Chrysler/Dodge dealer. Loved it.

Seriously thought about buying right then and there but they completely jew'd me when appraising my car. $7,500 offer when I bought it for $16k only a year ago.

The sales guy was annoying as fuck too. Didn't really know shit about the S5 and insisted on demonstrating the B&O stereo by turning it up to seriously uncomfortable volumes. I'm trying to listen to that glorious engine, not jam out to Chainsmokers you fucking asshole.

>>17292484
>S5 would be much more unreliable

Not saying they have stellar reliability in general, but how is it any worse than a 135i? From what I understand, Audi's newer FSI 4.2's don't suffer from all that timing chain nonsense.

>very uninspiring to drive in comparison

They're two different kinds of cars. One is more of a sports car, and the other is an athletic grand tourer. Both have something to offer. Just gotta decide what you're looking for.

>>17292497
>also it would be slower than the 135i

As far as 0-60, aren't they both pretty close to 5 seconds? I don't see how that's a big deal.

>>17292619
yup the S5 is a heavy, ''boring'' yet a more comfortable car.
135i is much smaller and more nimble

File: 228i.jpg (2MB, 2048x1360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2048x1360px

>>17292645
2014 228i does 0-60 in 4.9, 135i did it in 5.1

It can be had for under 20k, and its a Turbo 4 so you can tune it to get more. And it doesnt look like a retarded cramped version of the e92 like the 1 series was

>>17292645
>boring

Eh. Gotta say I had a lot of fun revving that engine out. It's not a track star by any means, but there's certainly some redeeming qualities to the S5. Complement the 4.2 with an aftermarket exhaust and prepare to jizz haha.

>>17292657
Isn't it a bit silly to argue over tenths of a second though? 135i/228i and the S5 all do 0-60 in roughly 5 seconds. They're all damn quick.

>>17292154
>dat cupholder
Why?

>>17292707
I think it kind of pops out or something.

>>17292691
Don't bother listening to >>17292657

The 135i has posted better 0-60 times than 4.9, and 0-60 is a normie state anyway.

This test had a 135i going 0-60 in 4.7.

A quarter mile in 13.3 @ 106 mph.

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2008-bmw-135i.pdf

No fucking 228i is going to trap over 105 mph in the quarter.

>>17292393
There really aren't common issues with the 135i, you may have stuff like fuel injectors but that's about it.

>>17292619
>timing belt
The n55 is a chain driven engine....

>>17292139
N55 has it's fair share of issues but that said 20k is a fair price from a 2011 but I think it's only 'fair' because no one really wants a white interior (I hope you don't wear jeans). I paid 16.8k for an 08 but with a red interior which I get compliments on all the time.

135i is a great fun car but anything past the initial bolt ons and tune isn't cheap. I paid 2.5k for coilovers and I'm gonna need another 2.5 for a diff...

>>17292717
Speaking of CarAndDriver...

They tested a 2008 S5 with these results:
>0-60 in 4.8
>1/4 mile in 13.4 @ 105 mph

So why are people complaining that the S5 is "slower" ? Seems like it's just a mental hangup about tenths of a second.

No one gives a shit about 0-60 times stop arguing about that bullshit you retards

>>17292139
>but the second may have gone independent, as there's not really any records for him.
he may have gone independent.. or he may not have had it serviced.

Enjoy anon!

>>17292726
>The n55 is a chain driven engine....

Wasn't commenting on the N55 engine. Many people think the S5's FSI 4.2 suffers the same timing chain issues as previous S4's, which is not the case. That's all I was saying.

>>17292746
>I paid 16.8k for an 08

Did you encounter the HPFP issue?

This same dealer is also selling a black-on-black '09 135i w/ 60k miles, but that N54 makes me nervous.

>>17292139
Yeah sure, if you can pay for regular maintenance. Bimmers are bullet proof but you gotta service them.

>>17292748
135i would eat that thing alive from a rolling start race
also the 135i has a turbo engine for dat tuning

>>17292795
Not yet but I think mine is on the way out (occasionally it cranks for a couple seconds instead of starting up right away). It's still warrantied for 10 years though and I double checked with the dealer. So if you get the 09 you won't have to worry until 2019

>>17292139
>spending 20k on a 6 year old used BMW

for 20k you could put a high down payment on a car that hasn't been farted into oblivion.

File: IMG_2294.jpg (99KB, 749x739px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 749x739px

>>17292815
This one is single owner. Fully loaded w/ M package.

>>17292827
Avoid the N54 period. And don't spend over 15k on a car that is older than 6 years.

/o/ is so fucking stupid. theres literally nothing wrong with the n54 or 5.

Anyone know how much HPFP is out of warranty? If it's under $1k and a one-time fix, then I don't really care.

>>17292838
So I should hold of paying £34k on a '85 Toyota Corolla then?

>>17292776
Gotcha my bad

>>17292139
Honestly the 135i is overrated. They are cool cars but the most power you're ever going to make from them is like 350~ with bolt ons and a tune and that it's a pretty shitty value proposition to spend nearly $20k + future maintenance on a meme RWD car that isn't even that fast

>>17292981

The 135i is plenty fast for 20k, and its plenty of fun too. A lot better than all the corollas and civics out there.

>>17292160
Yes that's stock, No coilovers won't fuck the car, unless its stupid low.

>>17292981
>350's not fast.

Sayeth the bus rider.