1966 BMW 2000 CS
1966 BMW 2000 CS in Emergency!, TV Series, 1972-1978 Ep. 1.03
Class: Cars, Coupé — Model origin: 
— Made for: 
00:31:54 ![[*]](/res/star.png){kind=small}
Background vehicle
Comments about this vehicle
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
◊ 2010-06-09 20:20 |
BMW 3.0 CSL |
|
◊ 2010-06-09 20:42 |
How can you tell it's a 3.0 CSL? As far as I know the 3.0 CSL had spoilers and even some rubber on the rear wings. I'd suggest it's a 2000 C/CS. |
|
◊ 2010-06-09 21:00 |
Not all 3.0 CSL had spoilers.... http://www.e9coupe.com/gallery/data/media/3/bmw_3.0_kolupplag.jpg -- Last edit: 2010-06-09 21:29:19 (Neon) |
|
◊ 2010-06-09 21:34 |
I'm sorry for that mistake. But how can you tell it's not a 2000 C/CS? |
|
◊ 2010-06-09 21:38 |
3.0 csl were more common in the US than 2000 cs, also 2000 cs tend to have chrome segmented tailights were 3.0 csl do not, this one appears not to have segmented tailights. -- Last edit: 2010-06-09 21:42:17 |
|
◊ 2010-06-09 21:50 |
With whole respect, she's not 3.0 CSL. She's plain (more elegant for me) E9 with not distinctive extra chrome circular strips on wheelarches. Lacks front "plow" spoiler and characteristic side sticker-strips: http://img2.netcarshow.com/BMW-3.0_CSL_1971_800x600_wallpaper_01.jpg Well, BMW didn't make 2000C/CS or 3.0 CSL for US market at all. We have only two E9 possibilities for US market: 2800 CS (made since 08/1969), or 3.0 CS (since 04/1971). -- Last edit: 2010-06-09 22:14:49 |
|
◊ 2010-06-09 21:58 |
rapid130, your link shows a Corvette convertible for me. It is hard to tell fro just arear angle so that's why I brought up about the segmented tailights on a 2000cs vs non segmented lights on a 3.0, this one appears to have non segmented tailights. |
|
◊ 2010-06-09 22:00 |
So, just [E9] code will be correct. |
|
◊ 2010-06-09 22:12 |
European 2000C/CS and E9 had same type of tail light: Link to "www.realoem.com" 2800 CS and 3.0 CS for US had its own type of tail light: Link to "www.realoem.com" |
|
◊ 2010-06-09 22:36 |
Yes, I'll go with BMW E9 as the description!  |
|
◊ 2010-06-10 05:42 |
For me too now. :DDDD Another link to exactly same photo: http://www.autoevolution.com/images/gallery/medium/BMW3-0CSL-medium-1639_1.jpg |
|
◊ 2011-02-22 23:10 |
The simple bumper and the trim panel look 2000C/CS to me, even if other comments say 2000 not sold in US. Also very thin large steering wheel and narrow wheels. I don't believe 2800 or later. -- Last edit: 2011-03-12 00:13:06 |
|
◊ 2011-03-11 17:27 |
Is that correct? Both Car & Driver and Road & Track did full road tests and a general BMW history book I've got talks about a special US headlight arrangement without the glass cover. See also /vehicle_57124-BMW-2000-CS-1966.html and /vehicle_268019-BMW-2000-CS-1966.html . As before, I think this is 2000 CA/CS. -- Last edit: 2011-03-11 19:25:40 |
|
◊ 2011-03-11 19:24 |
@dsl: your second link is broken |
|
◊ 2011-03-11 19:26 |
Thanks - fixed (I think). |
|
◊ 2011-03-25 16:22 |
At last I've found proof that this in fact is a 2000 C/CS. All E9 from 2800 CS had rear bumper rubber holdings below the bumper which this hasn't. Look here Link to "s547.photobucket.com" |
|
◊ 2011-03-25 16:38 |
@zodiac - excellent. It may be simpler than you suggest - I think the difference is the rubber moulding or inset along the face of the bumper, not "holdings below the bumper" - the problem is reading the handwritten caption in your link with its ambiguous lettering and US spelling. |
|
◊ 2011-03-25 23:00 |
R&T stands for "Road and Track", I would say. |
|
◊ 2011-11-25 01:05 |
1966+ 2000 C/CS as argued above. |
