Taking only style into consideration, it's fairly obvious that BMW didn't really "get it" until 1984 with the E30-chassis 3 Series; and even then, they didn't finally nail the pattern until the 1988 E34 5 Series. With a few rare exceptions, everything that BMW built prior to 1982 or so was undeniably odd and, well, Bavarian.
The 2002 is a good example: it was built from 1968 through 1976 in a time dominated by sexy Italian coupés, sexy British roadsters, and yes—even sexy American muscle cars. Even the other Germans were making extraordinarily compelling vehicles: the 911 was introduced in 1966, Mercedes was selling the fantastic Pagoda W113 roadster, and Volkswagen was busy taking over the world with the brilliant Beetle. So the 2002, built as a small two-door part of the BMW New Class of vehicles, stood out like a sore thumb.
That's not to say that the 2002 hasn't had amazing impact—because it has. BMW sold nearly half a million of the little buggers worldwide (around 20% headed for the US) and, more importantly, it formed the platform for the wildly popular 3 Series. The 3 now comprises over 50% of all BMW sales, and the technical reasons for its success (light weight and a competent engine) were founded in the 2002.
The problem is that it took BMW until the 3 to figure out the marketing for the small Bavarian runabout, which is what makes the 3 so undeniably great; it's an engineering masterpiece but it's also executive and understated at the same time. While the 2002 is great engineering, it's neither executive nor understated.
Four powerplants were available in the 2002 during the eight years it was sold: the base carbureted 4 making 98hp, the ti 4 making 120hp, the tii fuel-injected also-4-cylinder making 130hp, and the Turbo generating a whopping 170hp. Although the vast majority of all 2002s are 2-door coupés, a convertible was also sold and a hatchback variant called the 2002 Touring (seen below) was also produced in the base and tii trims.
Collectability: Average. It's a better investment than the E21, about the same as the E30, but not nearly as good as the E36.
Ahh, the list:
(+) It's the 3's daddy. Yes, we all know BMWs are pretentious cars driven primarily by pretentious pricks—but the fact of the matter is that BMW has had a monopoly on the luxury sport market for nearly two decades. The 2002 is the original 3.
(+) It's powerful for its age. Carbureted base model notwithstanding, the 2002ti and 2002tii were both making good triple-digit horsepower—which is impressive for a car of its size and age. Yes, the Americans were doing ridiculous things by throwing big cubic inches all over the place, but 120hp was more than enough to give the British a run for their money back in 1968.
(+) Racing heritage. Shall we just take a look?
This car was very seriously raced in the early 1970s—not to the point that the BMW 3.0CSL was, but raced nevertheless.
(+) It's a BMW without being a BMW. This is not a car which will make you look like a 1980s corporate raider—which is something practically every other BMW will do. Driving a shiny 2002 will turn those middle fingers into thumbs-ups.
(-) It's got quirky looks. I'm not a big fan. It's the "tupperware" look that gets me—both the hood and the trunk look like they've been burped over the edge of the rest of the car.
This is a car which is likeable—I don't like it, but I suppose someone could.
(-) The market for these cars is flat. If you're into odd, old, tiny German cars, you can certainly get a lot odder, older, and tinier without much (ahem) difficulty. If you're not, then you probably drive a Camaro or something. The 2002 was a cheap thrillmobile which was notable for the line of cars it spawned—but it isn't notable on its own. This is reflected in the market for these cars, which is likely to remain flat for quite a while. Yes, it has more "cult" status than BMW's other offerings of similar age, but the following is too small and there are too many 2002s still around to make it worth the plunge. Sink your cash into a 911 instead.
Expect to pay: $5,000 for a really solid 2002 or 2002ti up to $10,000 for a 2002tii. Forget about the Turbo.
What to look for:
- Rust in the floorboards, rocker panels, and rear shock towers—the towers are especially problematic and I've heard of the entire rear suspension collapsing due to rust.
- Carbureted (i.e., base model) cars made after 1972 have 2-barrel Solex carbs, which can be very difficult to repair and maintain. If you're looking at a 1972+ carb'd 2002, be sure it starts and runs very smoothly.
- Avoid the automatics entirely. Even the higher-output 2002tii's engine is easily strangled by a slushbox.
- No modifications. This is a vintage German performance car, not a damned Honda. The only modifications you should be accepting are some Alpina parts or maybe some beer and sausage strewn about the interior.
I have to admit that the few times I rode with justin in his 2k2 we got all the looks from the girls on campus. One girl even yelled at us, "I Like Your Car!" - something I've never gotten in either the corrado and most certainly not in the rabbit.
I dunno. I get the feeling that Nivala still would bust our the hoodie sweatshirt and dark glasses if he was forced to ride in a 2002.
I am about to start building up my engine on my 2002. I'll try to keep info up to date on my blog. Anyway, since you spoke about its racing heritage, you should do an entry on the Datsun 510.
Oooo, the 510. Excellent choice!
i think this is the most ignorant piece of writing if ever read about a car.
an e36 owner wants to talk about cars. hmmm.. the biggest pos bmw ever made and he thinks he can have an opinion. Taking only style into consideration, it's fairly obvious that BMW didn't really "get it" until 1984 with the E30-chassis 3 Series; and even then, they didn't finally nail the pattern until the 1988 E34 5 Series"
thats the biggest load of bullshit ive ever heard. ever hear of the cs coupes, the e24, the e28, the e23 and the '02 is a great looking car. they out handle most cars that actually have a purpose other than being a toy. and the market is flat? ok... then how come nice tii's are going for more than 20k and rising, one was listed for 53k. dont talk about something you dont know about, and dont offer opinions when you have terrible taste.
Marty-
Sorry you feel that way.
I really don't think BMW had it figured out, even with the 1600 series, E9, E23, E24, or E38. That's not to say these cars are without fans (clearly) but they never found their way into the mainstream automotive visual lexicon—and because of that, I think BMW was a bit off in their styling.
And I'm not sure what your point about the price of the cars is. Sure, 2002s regularly sell for more than $10k, but that doesn't mean that as a whole, the market is willing to support that. And for every $50,000 2002 that's sold I can find something equally nutty that sold for just as much. One car doesn't make a market.
Lastly, I'm curious why you consider the E36 to be a POS.
Cheers,
--Dan
the e9 and e24 have been considered the some of the best looking cars of all time, just look in Automobile magazine, so i really dont know where your getting your thinking on that. the market is rising and for such a massly produced car the prices are quite high.
The e36 on the other hand..
bland and uninteresting looking, with more plastic than a tonka truck(and i dont just mean the interior, your themostat elbow is plastic-thats just sorry.) the rear subframes detach themselves from the body, something i expect from a chevy cavalier not a bmw. and everything is just so underspecified and cost cut that its really quite embarrassing. they just dont last, and they handle quite pig like for a "sports sedan". and im not basing any of this from test reviews or articles either.
I agree—the E9 is a handsome car. And I see what you're talking about there, and I see the note in Automobile (Sep. 2006, pg. 62).
But, a single well-executed model doesn't make design language, and that's what I contend BMW lacked in those early cars. The later cars look really quite good across the board, even though there are a few bad eggs here or there. The difference is that instead of one good-looking car among a field of relative oddballs, there are a range of vehicles that all express attractive design cues—and in this case, it's largely all the same design cues. That's what I mean when I say BMW didn't "figure it out" until the E30.
I'm also not sure about where Automobile says the E24 is one of the best-looking cars of all time. I'm pretty sure they covered most of their bases in the "25 most beautiful cars ever" article. The E24 certainly wasn't in there.
And for the E36...well, I sortof like plastic. I haven't had to drive a car with an all-metal dashboard and all-metal door panels and an all-metal engine for quite a while. It's heavy and is frankly overengineered for a lot of things. Plastic isn't suitable for everything, but I haven't had any problems with my thermostat elbow, and that makes me think that it isn't a problem there. Plus, it's cheaper and lighter than a cast elbow, and those are both positive things.
An abused 2002 will fall apart just as quickly as an abused E36, as will most anything else. Yes, I've had problems with my shock tower mounts, but beyond a bit of noise, it doesn't affect handling or reliability—and it doesn't mean the entire rear subframe is going to fall off. I'm not sure where you're getting that from.
It's also a heavier car than the 2002, and most older BMW's. It's not going to handle the same. If it feels "piggish" to you, that's fine—but I've driven a lot of 3,000+ lb cars, and the E36 is one of the best.
the e24 was in an earlier month with the top 100 cars of all time, and its also revered by enthusiasts. the e36s plastic does come into play, you have to replace most of the cooling system every 80k i believe, my dad had an e39 with the same engine. and yes an abused 02 WILL last longer than a e36, no comparison in longetivity and i garantee my engine could take more boost and other stress before breaking. my dads e28 m5 and his ex 535iS were both much nimbler and more composed than e36s, and theyre both heavier. well the iS might be around the same but still.
Im a hater of modern BMWs(with good reason) and working on the old ones is my job. so im no tire kicker.
buy an e30 318 with either the m10 or m42 and you will have a ball compared to your e36 with no quirks of the 02(i like those quirks). the m10 will last longer btw ;)
The E24 is eccentrically styled. There's absolutely no mass-market appeal there, and I really don't like it.
And as for the rest—it's called progress. The 2002 is a noisy (and usually rusty) tin-can of car that has a reasonably reliable powerplant because it's simple as all hell and is built with lots of metal pieces—because that's what was available back in the 1960s. Are there far fewer things to go wrong on a 2002 than most modern vehicles? Hell yes.
But there's also a reason why there are a lot more things to break on an E36. It's larger, rides better, and actually has things like power windows. Simply put, nobody would buy new cars if all they could get were brand-new versions of the 2002. Volkswagen pulled that show off for longer than nearly anyone else with the original Type 1, and they ran out of steam because the only people who actually bought a car like that were the ones who couldn't afford anything else.
There's simply no comparison there. Yes, new cars are built differently from old cars and yes, they fail in new and interesting ways—but you're out of your mind if you think there's a line that can be drawn between the E36 and the 2002 that says one is better than the other. Compare their finer points, sure, but you're not making any strong arguments with your schoolyard dares of handling boost and clear indication that you're unwilling to concede any ground on the 2002. It's not a perfect car—far from it.
silly man.
in 40 years an 02 will be in better shape than an e36. why? because its built better, designed better and uses better materials. i dont care if the windows wont go up, because manual windows wear out eventually too. but it terms of this car will still be driveable(the point of a car...) the 02 will long outlast just about all post e30 cars.
You've got to be kidding me—have you thought about rust? Anti-corrosion technology has come a long way since 1968.
In 1970 my father said that I should have a car at school. I instantly picked the BMW 2002, it being easily the best value for the money. No it didn't look cool, but I was anti-establishment, if you remember the term, and so was the 2002. Boxy, yet alluring. Small, but comfortable. Light but roadable. BMW engineering was on to something. It was the anti-muscle car. The roads in Kentucky were incredibly well paved in the 60's and 70's. And they were rollercoaster-like to conform to the topo. There were any amount of Barracudas and Mustangs that scudded into a ditch following my little blue 2002. Miss that little car. Don't feel sorry for me as I'll be jumping into my 2005 545 Six -Speed in just a minute. Ah, BMW.
I think you've hit on something that I missed in my article: the counterculture allure of European cars in the 1970s. The VW Type 1 is the obvious frontrunner in this category, but it's impossible to deny that the 2002 played a huge role in establishing anti-muscle in the US.
However, I also think it took until the 1980s for manufacturers to figure out the Euro-kitsch market, with VW's GTI on the lower end, and with the Volvo 2xx and Saab 900 on the upper—and later, with the E30 3 series.
But it's difficult to argue that if you were young and hip anytime between 1970 and 1980, you probably drove one of the cars listed above.
I think it's hilarious that everone is arguing so much about a make of car that overall we love. Driving a 2002 for the last 7 years has really helped my enthusiasm for BMW in general. I love the 2002. It's raw fun that's hard to find and the looks from bystanders are always great. Mine has a lot of problems, but I think what I like so much is there's so much room to fix those problems. It just keeps running. I've got opinions, but I'm not about to dis other models 'cause all that does is flare up tempers.
Dan-
I had exactly the same opinion about the second-generation Volkswagen Scirocco I tossed around town for a few years. Fantastic little car, but with absolutely zero collectability.
--Dan
Just to clear up a few points:
Its true that the plastic peices of the coolant system can be problematic over time but they are an easy ~$100 fix and once replaced with either metal or newer BMW parts(using better formulated plastics) they will not fail again so I dont know where your every 80k comes from.
Also, the problems with the rearshock mounts are generally only seen on cars that are heavily tracked. The stock 3 series isnt a track nor race car so I dont think it is unreasonable to spend the ~$80 it costs for renforced mounts if you are going to track the car.
Essentially I think your points about the e36 are BS . The plastics issue is one of the period. Its unfair to compare a car versus a car from a different period since they are developed for different markets (as marty noted) the market for a car as sparce and harsh as the 2002 just isnt their, look at the lotus elise that is an incredible car (albeit it could use a better engine stateside) but it doenst have a major market the way it is now nevermind if it looked as ungainly as the 2002.
cap2501-
I'm not sure which part of the article (or comments) you're referring to.
And I'm not really sure what your point is with the last bit about the Elise—are you trying to comment on the collectability of unrefined, lightweight cars? There are plenty of counterexamples here: the Porsche 914 is one of the many which have grown tremendously in collecability in the last two or three years.
--Dan