E9 and E3 weights ?

Stefan

Stefan

Well-Known Member
Messages
529
Reaction score
8
Location
Sweden
Like John, I have this question on my mind.
I've been all over "inside/out to bolt level" on both E3 and E9 and still can't see were the extra heavy weight on the E9 sits.

Frame, yes a little bit. But the rest? Otherwise I've not noticed any area on the E9 that seems to be over dimensioned compared to E3.
The CSL lightweight option didn't either do much over all.

At "public" car meetings folks often say: -This little neat (E9) car can't weight much and together with this 200hp..Wow!

Well, it's hard to admit that this is a hippo compressed into a coupe designed dress :)
 
GolfBavaria

GolfBavaria

Well-Known Member
Site Donor $$
Messages
1,798
Reaction score
713
Location
Coeur d'Alene, IDAHO
Like Stefan eluded to, it's not stuff you can "see" so to speak. I was always told it is mostly in beefing up the frame and roof since it is a pillar-less design. Just like convertibles are almost always heaver than the coupe version even with a soft roof due to the stiffening of the frame etc. At 245lbs. I need all the help I can get in my e3! LOL
 
J

John Buchtenkirch

Well-Known Member
Messages
650
Reaction score
7
Location
Glen Cove, Long Island, NY
Being a body man pretty much my entire working life I can certainly understand why an American convertible weights more than a sedan or even a hardtop, the convertible frame has an X member added to make up for torsional strength lost by lack of roof plus the hydraulic pumps and cylinders to raise & lower the convertible roof framework which is also heavier than you might think. But still American 4 door cars were always heavier than the same model in a 2 door but somehow BMW has managed to make a smaller 2 door coupe heavier than a larger 4 door, I am having a hard time understanding it ??? As far as beefing up the coupe’s uni-body chassis goes they must have used a heavier gauge metal throughout, otherwise I just can’t see where all this extra weight is hidden ? ~ John Buchtenkirch
 
Last edited:
C

Chamonix_E9

Guest
Is it the lead used by Karmann to straighten the bodywork? :p

Seriously, I can account for some but 200 lbs? The E3 and E9 were built in entirely different factories. Could it be heavier gauge steel involved in its production?
The rear window systems are indeed heavy.
The wood trim over the doors and sides is very heavy, being mostly steel.
The A pillars are very beefy on an E9, they extend further out of the body too. 2x5? lbs
E9 has an extra reinforcement into each of the rockers. 2x6 lbs.
Extra rocker covers, 2x5lbs
Strong B-pillar construction, 2x3 lbs?
Roof, 10 lbs?
E9 gutters that are notorious for rusting out, the E3 does not have them, and that area was also reinforced (before it too rusted away again). 2x5? lbs
The front wings are a big one, 15 lbs on the E9 vs. 3.3 on the E3. Another 23 lbs.
Trim and bumpers may add some too. Still not there, not even counting items on the E3 that the E9 doesn't have yet. Quite a bit of the weight is in the front, noticeable in the dynamics of the E9.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
shanon

shanon

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,030
Reaction score
564
Location
NorCal
Think one needs to compare how the two are 'optioned'.

An American market CS, fully loaded (sun roof, power windows, A/C, leather) is very heavy.

I would compare a loaded E9 to a fully loaded E3 (Late American market Bavaria with same options).

An early E3 with roll up windows, no sun roof or AC and cloth interior is likely a lightweight. ...
 
MMercury

MMercury

Well-Known Member
Messages
481
Reaction score
5
John Buchtenkirch said:
Kind of hard to believe :shock:. Could the vent windows and the ridiculously heavy quarter window regulators really add that much more ? I’d guess the front seats are heavier too but it’s still hard to see where the difference is when considering the extra doors. ~ John Buchtenkirch
Click to expand...




I think the weights could be off by a smidgen or two. First, each model and each year came in different trim and that means different weights. It is anyone's guess exactly how the weights are differentiated by market. The later North American market models would likely carry more equipment than their Euro market counterparts. Right hand drive has extra bragging rights to extra brake servos too. Auto trans, US bumpers, emission controls, electric windows, leather interior and air conditioning generally (but not always) mean more weight too. Nivomat, sunroof, brakes all can add weight too. Not sure whether shot peening the glass to make it bullet proof adds weight.:shock: Of course rust tends to reduce weight and it is rumored that a working clock weighs more than a non-working clock.

If my eyes are not deceiving me, The 3.0S which "might" be the equivalent of the Bavaria model weighs in at 3130 lbs. Evidently, fuel injection carries with it an additional 45 lb. penalty. Not clear if that is just the D-jet or the L-jet. The three liter E9 is listed at 3086 while the csi 3130lbs. For those on a diet, note the posted weight of a csl is a svelte 264lbs less than the csi at 2866lbs.



Here's what my January 76 spec sheet says:
picture.php






I recall a shipping manifest for a 73csi listed at 1380kg and 3036 lbs, which is consistent with the below info.
p_093.jpg



BMW thought so much of John's question (as it applied to the Bavaria), they did not appear to include the E3 curb weight in the 72-73 owner's manual!
picture.php


 
L

lsquaredb

Well-Known Member
Messages
200
Reaction score
51
Location
Chester VT
The 2800CS is only 99 lbs heavier than the CSL! And that's before further weight reduction through the Karmann process.
 
Markos

Markos

Well-Known Member
Site Donor
Messages
13,369
Reaction score
7,502
Location
Seattle, WA
I’m digging this one up. As mentioned elsewhere I took my somewhat stripped
manual windows bumpers less no rear interior 2800CS to a scale today and came in at 2,840 with a half tank. I can’t say how accurate the scale is, but it would not surprise me if it is off.

Other documented numbers:

2800 CS:
2,965 (owner’s manual, 1970)
2,990 (Road & Track Curb Weight, 1970)
2,932 (bmw-grouparchiv.de, pre 1971)
2,965 (bmw-grouparchiv.de, 1971+)
2,985 (Martin Buckley, 1990)
2,491 (Peter Rosellen, 1973) - must be an error
2,840 (@Markos truck scale ~40lbs parts removed, 2022)

3.0 CS:
3,030 (Martin Buckley, 1990)
3,235 (@decoupe weigh station, 2006)
3,175 (Road & Track Curb Weight, 1973)
3,480 (Road & Track Test Weight, 1973)
3,042 (Peter Rosellen, 1973)
3,042 (bmw-grouparchiv.de)

3.0 CSI:
3,030 (Martin Buckley, 1990)
3,042 (Peter Rosellen, 1973)
3,042 (bmw-grouparchiv.de)

3.0 CSL Carb:
2,568 (Peter Rosellen, 1973)
2,568 (bmw-grouparchiv.de)


3.0 CSIL:
2,568 (Peter Rosellen, 1973)

3.0 CSIL City Pack:
2,887 (Martin Buckley, 1990)

3.0 CSL Batmobile:
2,567 (Martin Buckley, 1990)

Edit: posting to save. Adding more references.
 
Krzysztof

Krzysztof

Well-Known Member
Site Donor
Messages
1,607
Reaction score
775
Location
Poland
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top