BMW 316 (91-98 model)

Homer J Simpson · 14-04-2005 9:37am #1

Hi, I am buying the above BMW 1.6 model. The car I'm currently looking at is a 1996 reg. with 90k miles on the clock.
Can anyone who owns\owned this particular model describe their experiences good or bad with this car.

Thanks.

x in the city · 14-04-2005 2:48pm

get it checked out with a diagnostic computer first.! the 316i i bought, as is well documented here (thanks folks) needed a thermo and an idle air valve not too long after purchase. its all well now thou.

e

Seth Brundle · 14-04-2005 2:55pm

saloon or coupe?
Get a mechanic to view it with you
Ensure it has a full service history
Ensure all electrics work!
Are there any modifications to it? Are there OEM alloys or aftermarket ones on it?
Check bodywork for misaligned panels or difference is paint colours (sign of crash damage)
Ensure it has a half decent NCT period left
What does it sound like starting from cold (tell the owner you want to hear it start from cold) - any strange noises?
See if you can take it for a test drive - any handling problems or strange noises?
There are plenty E36 BMWs around - don't feel you have to settle on any old one!

528i · 14-04-2005 3:09pm

Age please Homer ?

Little One · 14-04-2005 4:53pm

320 is a better model than the 316 or 318 - they are only toys. I have had both and the 320 is def the better model and they hold their money better.

ando · 14-04-2005 5:25pm

528i wrote:

Age please Homer ?

I'd put a bet down he's 22

Seth Brundle · 14-04-2005 7:38pm

Little One wrote:

320 is a better model than the 316 or 318 - they are only toys. I have had both and the 320 is def the better model and they hold their money better.

Actually if going up to a 6 pot then the 325i or later the 323i were better cars and in many cases more fuel efficient but when revved more sporty. However, as the OP is looking for a 316i Im assuming insurance/tax are strong considerations.
However I would not rule out the 318iS or even the 318ti (compact) which had the revvy M42 [and later the M44] 4 cylinder engines

RicardoSmith · 14-04-2005 9:53pm

I'd say the 6 pots are much heavier on fuel no? Do these take high miles well?

Gatster · 14-04-2005 9:59pm

...Back to the funtime Nikasil issue!

KTRIC · 14-04-2005 10:21pm

I had a 91' 316 Touring, the GF ran the sh!te out of it because it was under powered. Lovely car to drive , very stylish but you'd be better off with a 325 or if you can't afford it a 320.

Seth Brundle · 14-04-2005 10:24pm

@Ricardo - they are more thirsty compared to the 4 pots, but the 2L is regarded as being more thirsty then the 2.5. However, the sound makes it all worthwhile!

As for Nikasil - it didn't affect the M50 2.0 or 2.5L engines (early 320i/325i) (i.e. only M52 engined 320i/323i/328i)

BMW 316 (91-98 model)

Comments