Do you need anything more than a 320d?
Discussion
St John Smythe said:
Let him have his moment. He clearly couldn't buy a 997 possibly due to finances or other reasons but has convinced himself his 5 series is better in some way.
Good response, very 'playground'. Ironically, I think the only 997s that would have been more expensive at the time would have been Turbos and GT3s etc. And if I didn't need 4 seats and reasonable boot space, plus the ability to carry a bike, I more than likely would have gone for a 4S, 991 not 997 though.T0MMY said:
Ares said:
I can't give you figures, I don't have them. All I can give you is experience, and certainly not 0-60/0-100s. Standing starts are never going to favour an oil-burner - witness the qtr times of half a second difference D3 vs 997, but the 0-100 times of over 2 secs. Shows that same bhp, greater weight D3 was catching the 997 at quite a rate once the standing start losses were done - which pretty much backs up what I've said. Regardless, you not believing is unsurprising, hence my genuine offer for anyone to experience.
Santa Pod is a 5hr trip for me. I won't be there on 27th, but if i can schedule meetings and get there another day, I will - I might be in a suit & tie though
Well actually, if you think about it, the 1/4 times suggest the D3 was either getting off the line better or with quicker reaction times and then was losing out to the Porsche. Santa Pod is a 5hr trip for me. I won't be there on 27th, but if i can schedule meetings and get there another day, I will - I might be in a suit & tie though
Given that the D3 is only just passing 100 by the end of the 1/4 the 997 must have a higher terminal speed (or whatever you drag people say), so would be pulling away more and more through the race. Either it was beaten off the line (due to technique maybe?) or it was losing out a bit at lower speed then pulling away as the speed increased.
Edited by T0MMY on Wednesday 22 July 19:13
D3 took 2 secs longer to get to 100, but did a qtr in a similar time? ergo, the Porsche would have been well ahead i.e. after 10 secs it was travelling faster and must have therefore travelled further....but 2 secs later the D3 had pretty much caught up?
As I say, I'm no a physicist so stand to be corrected by one.
Ares said:
St John Smythe said:
Let him have his moment. He clearly couldn't buy a 997 possibly due to finances or other reasons but has convinced himself his 5 series is better in some way.
Good response, very 'playground'. Ironically, I think the only 997s that would have been more expensive at the time would have been Turbos and GT3s etc. And if I didn't need 4 seats and reasonable boot space, plus the ability to carry a bike, I more than likely would have gone for a 4S, 991 not 997 though.Ares said:
Does it? I'm no a physicist. But it seems to suggest the Porsche got off the line far better, the D3 then caught up....
D3 took 2 secs longer to get to 100, but did a qtr in a similar time? ergo, the Porsche would have been well ahead i.e. after 10 secs it was travelling faster and must have therefore travelled further....but 2 secs later the D3 had pretty much caught up?
As I say, I'm no a physicist so stand to be corrected by one.
Well I don't know a thing about drag racing but comparing the 1/4 times with the 0-100 times suggests the Porsche could have cracked 100mph about 2.5 seconds before the end while the D3 did so only 0.5-1 second before the end, hence the Porsche would have reached a higher top speed so was pulling away at that point. D3 took 2 secs longer to get to 100, but did a qtr in a similar time? ergo, the Porsche would have been well ahead i.e. after 10 secs it was travelling faster and must have therefore travelled further....but 2 secs later the D3 had pretty much caught up?
As I say, I'm no a physicist so stand to be corrected by one.
If the Porsche was pulling away quite significantly by the end AND had a far better start to boot, the gap would have been much larger. The D3 must have had either a better start or better acceleration for a brief period at lower speed.
St John Smythe said:
Ares said:
St John Smythe said:
Let him have his moment. He clearly couldn't buy a 997 possibly due to finances or other reasons but has convinced himself his 5 series is better in some way.
Good response, very 'playground'. Ironically, I think the only 997s that would have been more expensive at the time would have been Turbos and GT3s etc. And if I didn't need 4 seats and reasonable boot space, plus the ability to carry a bike, I more than likely would have gone for a 4S, 991 not 997 though.Likewise, if I didn't need to carry any luggage at all, or didn't need to use it for business, I might HAVE gone back to an Exige.
Likewise, if I didn't need to drive any journey other than for pure pleasure, I might HAVE gone back to a Caterham.
T0MMY said:
Ares said:
Does it? I'm no a physicist. But it seems to suggest the Porsche got off the line far better, the D3 then caught up....
D3 took 2 secs longer to get to 100, but did a qtr in a similar time? ergo, the Porsche would have been well ahead i.e. after 10 secs it was travelling faster and must have therefore travelled further....but 2 secs later the D3 had pretty much caught up?
As I say, I'm no a physicist so stand to be corrected by one.
Well I don't know a thing about drag racing but comparing the 1/4 times with the 0-100 times suggests the Porsche could have cracked 100mph about 2.5 seconds before the end while the D3 did so only 0.5-1 second before the end, hence the Porsche would have reached a higher top speed so was pulling away at that point. D3 took 2 secs longer to get to 100, but did a qtr in a similar time? ergo, the Porsche would have been well ahead i.e. after 10 secs it was travelling faster and must have therefore travelled further....but 2 secs later the D3 had pretty much caught up?
As I say, I'm no a physicist so stand to be corrected by one.
If the Porsche was pulling away quite significantly by the end AND had a far better start to boot, the gap would have been much larger. The D3 must have had either a better start or better acceleration for a brief period at lower speed.
The Porsche got quick quicker, then tailed off.
The D3 got quick slower, then caught up.
I think anyway. As I said, I'm no a physicist. They both have similar 0-60 times, 997 pipping it by 2-tenths according to 'wiki.
Edited by Ares on Wednesday 22 July 19:59
Ares said:
Think you have it the wrong way round. The did the distance in pretty much the same time
The Porsche got quick quicker, then tailed off.
The D3 got quick slower, then caught up.
I think anyway. As I said, I'm no a physicist. They both have similar 0-60 times, 997 pipping it by 2-tenths according to 'wiki.
I don't agree Ares and the figures you just posted corroborate what I thought. If the 0-60 times are close and the Porsche is quite a bit quicker 0-100, then it is pulling away as the speeds increase, not being reeled in. The Porsche got quick quicker, then tailed off.
The D3 got quick slower, then caught up.
I think anyway. As I said, I'm no a physicist. They both have similar 0-60 times, 997 pipping it by 2-tenths according to 'wiki.
Edited by T0MMY on Wednesday 22 July 20:17
Ares said:
St John Smythe said:
Ares said:
St John Smythe said:
Let him have his moment. He clearly couldn't buy a 997 possibly due to finances or other reasons but has convinced himself his 5 series is better in some way.
Good response, very 'playground'. Ironically, I think the only 997s that would have been more expensive at the time would have been Turbos and GT3s etc. And if I didn't need 4 seats and reasonable boot space, plus the ability to carry a bike, I more than likely would have gone for a 4S, 991 not 997 though.Likewise, if I didn't need to carry any luggage at all, or didn't need to use it for business, I might HAVE gone back to an Exige.
Likewise, if I didn't need to drive any journey other than for pure pleasure, I might HAVE gone back to a Caterham.
Ares said:
I would possibly HAVE bought one, if it could do what mine does. Yes.
Likewise, if I didn't need to carry any luggage at all, or didn't need to use it for business, I might HAVE gone back to an Exige.
Likewise, if I didn't need to drive any journey other than for pure pleasure, I might HAVE gone back to a Caterham.
I can't see how you'd find enjoyment in an Exige or Caterham. All you are doing Is discussing drag racing with wildly different cars. I'm lost as to why you feel there is a point to make with a 640d? Standard executive mile muncher /endLikewise, if I didn't need to carry any luggage at all, or didn't need to use it for business, I might HAVE gone back to an Exige.
Likewise, if I didn't need to drive any journey other than for pure pleasure, I might HAVE gone back to a Caterham.
yonex said:
Ares said:
I would possibly HAVE bought one, if it could do what mine does. Yes.
Likewise, if I didn't need to carry any luggage at all, or didn't need to use it for business, I might HAVE gone back to an Exige.
Likewise, if I didn't need to drive any journey other than for pure pleasure, I might HAVE gone back to a Caterham.
I can't see how you'd find enjoyment in an Exige or Caterham. All you are doing Is discussing drag racing with wildly different cars. I'm lost as to why you feel there is a point to make with a 640d? Standard executive mile muncher /endLikewise, if I didn't need to carry any luggage at all, or didn't need to use it for business, I might HAVE gone back to an Exige.
Likewise, if I didn't need to drive any journey other than for pure pleasure, I might HAVE gone back to a Caterham.
cerb4.5lee said:
Agree and a Caterham or Exige are cars worth chatting about as they are exciting to drive fast or slow and are great head turners...a 640d is a tool to do a job of covering big miles with some low end shove when you want it and its talents don't go any further than that as far as I am concerned.
Further to that Ares you mentioned a 260HP Caterham, I think you're doing it wrong I built something similar and it was less of a car than when it had 190HP. A 911 is tactile in a way that escapes allBMW's and I say that speaking as an owner of one. I think this debate referencing straight line performance is futile and without doubt the most boring part of car ownership in general.
T0MMY said:
I don't agree Ares and the figures you just posted corroborate what I thought. If the 0-60 times are close and the Porsche is quite a bit quicker 0-100, then it is pulling away as the speeds increase, not being reeled in.
The manual Porsche lost time having to make a gear change after the 100mph mark, hence the 1/4 mile times being closer.Edited by T0MMY on Wednesday 22 July 20:17
cerb4.5lee said:
yonex said:
Ares said:
I would possibly HAVE bought one, if it could do what mine does. Yes.
Likewise, if I didn't need to carry any luggage at all, or didn't need to use it for business, I might HAVE gone back to an Exige.
Likewise, if I didn't need to drive any journey other than for pure pleasure, I might HAVE gone back to a Caterham.
I can't see how you'd find enjoyment in an Exige or Caterham. All you are doing Is discussing drag racing with wildly different cars. I'm lost as to why you feel there is a point to make with a 640d? Standard executive mile muncher /endLikewise, if I didn't need to carry any luggage at all, or didn't need to use it for business, I might HAVE gone back to an Exige.
Likewise, if I didn't need to drive any journey other than for pure pleasure, I might HAVE gone back to a Caterham.
Ok, I'd never buy a current gen 6 series. I tried to convince myself to buy the previous petrol V10 model - but overall the 6 series is a nice car and a good choice for someone who is interested in driving but, like it or not, does have to carry stuff.
Some people are able to completely segregate family from enjoyment. Personally I find that bizarre. I may corner less aggressively with a car load but that doesn't mean we all want 320d misery any time a 3rd or 4th seat or some boot space is needed.
When a 640d is being compared to 911s I can see why the opposition gets increasingly dismissive of big powerful family cars - but the cars themselves are good bits of engineering and offer a lot more driving enjoyment than some heap of s
t like a Skoda Octavia ever will.jamieduff1981 said:
I dislike diesels and BMWs in equal measure, but I think we're being a little harsh on the 640d.
Some people are able to completely segregate family from enjoyment. Personally I find that bizarre. I may corner less aggressively with a car load but that doesn't mean we all want 320d misery any time a 3rd or 4th seat or some boot space is needed.
That's something that's always interested me, and something I mentioned on another thread on manuals vs autos. A lot of my friends own cars like Caterhams and Elises for weekends and sunny days and seem quite content with something dull in every measure for every day. Like you I've never been like that; I want to enjoy driving every time I drive a car, and given that I spend 10-12 hours a week in my daily driver, I have to enjoy driving it. Just going back to that other group though that compartmentalise their driving passions, think about that phrase "dull in every measure" that I used to describe their daily drivers, because a car that you consider dull by your measures may actually be really enjoyable for some with their measures, and that's the case with the 320d. Given that it has the same chassis as the 335i, 330i etc, and the same mechanical layout as plenty of sports cars, it's not dull in every measure is it? it's just dull by your reckoning because of the engine. For people like me mainly interested in the chassis, it's therefore not dull at all. I can still do everything that I enjoyed in my 330ci, 328i and 325i in the 320d - the cornering and handling is just the same, and that's the bit I enjoy. The only bit the engine's for is for accelerating in straight lines, and not only do I spend a vanishingly small amount of my driving time accelerating in a straight line, the act of accelerating is a long way down my list of enjoyable things about cars.Some people are able to completely segregate family from enjoyment. Personally I find that bizarre. I may corner less aggressively with a car load but that doesn't mean we all want 320d misery any time a 3rd or 4th seat or some boot space is needed.
RobM77 said:
That's something that's always interested me, and something I mentioned on another thread on manuals vs autos. A lot of my friends own cars like Caterhams and Elises for weekends and sunny days and seem quite content with something dull in every measure for every day. Like you I've never been like that; I want to enjoy driving every time I drive a car, and given that I spend 10-12 hours a week in my daily driver, I have to enjoy driving it. Just going back to that other group though that compartmentalise their driving passions, think about that phrase "dull in every measure" that I used to describe their daily drivers, because a car that you consider dull by your measures may actually be really enjoyable for some with their measures, and that's the case with the 320d. Given that it has the same chassis as the 335i, 330i etc, and the same mechanical layout as plenty of sports cars, it's not dull in every measure is it? it's just dull by your reckoning because of the engine. For people like me mainly interested in the chassis, it's therefore not dull at all. I can still do everything that I enjoyed in my 330ci, 328i and 325i in the 320d - the cornering and handling is just the same, and that's the bit I enjoy. The only bit the engine's for is for accelerating in straight lines, and not only do I spend a vanishingly small amount of my driving time accelerating in a straight line, the act of accelerating is a long way down my list of enjoyable things about cars.
I hope you're not suggesting that different people can have differing priorities and different ways of enjoying cars?This is PH - there must be a single homogeneous right/wrong answer!
You'd think so.
As far as DDs go there are certainly far worse choices than a 320d. I don't need the MPGs so I don't have one.
Rob's right that it's better to have the aspects important to you in a DD.
It's great that people can compartmentalise driving and be happy with a Laguna or whatever most of the time. That's not me though.
As far as DDs go there are certainly far worse choices than a 320d. I don't need the MPGs so I don't have one.
Rob's right that it's better to have the aspects important to you in a DD.
It's great that people can compartmentalise driving and be happy with a Laguna or whatever most of the time. That's not me though.
St John Smythe said:
Ares said:
St John Smythe said:
Ares said:
St John Smythe said:
Let him have his moment. He clearly couldn't buy a 997 possibly due to finances or other reasons but has convinced himself his 5 series is better in some way.
Good response, very 'playground'. Ironically, I think the only 997s that would have been more expensive at the time would have been Turbos and GT3s etc. And if I didn't need 4 seats and reasonable boot space, plus the ability to carry a bike, I more than likely would have gone for a 4S, 991 not 997 though.Likewise, if I didn't need to carry any luggage at all, or didn't need to use it for business, I might HAVE gone back to an Exige.
Likewise, if I didn't need to drive any journey other than for pure pleasure, I might HAVE gone back to a Caterham.
yonex said:
Ares said:
I would possibly HAVE bought one, if it could do what mine does. Yes.
Likewise, if I didn't need to carry any luggage at all, or didn't need to use it for business, I might HAVE gone back to an Exige.
Likewise, if I didn't need to drive any journey other than for pure pleasure, I might HAVE gone back to a Caterham.
I can't see how you'd find enjoyment in an Exige or Caterham. All you are doing Is discussing drag racing with wildly different cars. I'm lost as to why you feel there is a point to make with a 640d? Standard executive mile muncher /endLikewise, if I didn't need to carry any luggage at all, or didn't need to use it for business, I might HAVE gone back to an Exige.
Likewise, if I didn't need to drive any journey other than for pure pleasure, I might HAVE gone back to a Caterham.
If you think a tuned 640d is a 'standard exec mile muncher' then thats your prerogative & opinion. You are welcome to it!
jamieduff1981 said:
cerb4.5lee said:
yonex said:
Ares said:
I would possibly HAVE bought one, if it could do what mine does. Yes.
Likewise, if I didn't need to carry any luggage at all, or didn't need to use it for business, I might HAVE gone back to an Exige.
Likewise, if I didn't need to drive any journey other than for pure pleasure, I might HAVE gone back to a Caterham.
I can't see how you'd find enjoyment in an Exige or Caterham. All you are doing Is discussing drag racing with wildly different cars. I'm lost as to why you feel there is a point to make with a 640d? Standard executive mile muncher /endLikewise, if I didn't need to carry any luggage at all, or didn't need to use it for business, I might HAVE gone back to an Exige.
Likewise, if I didn't need to drive any journey other than for pure pleasure, I might HAVE gone back to a Caterham.
Ok, I'd never buy a current gen 6 series. I tried to convince myself to buy the previous petrol V10 model - but overall the 6 series is a nice car and a good choice for someone who is interested in driving but, like it or not, does have to carry stuff.
Some people are able to completely segregate family from enjoyment. Personally I find that bizarre. I may corner less aggressively with a car load but that doesn't mean we all want 320d misery any time a 3rd or 4th seat or some boot space is needed.
When a 640d is being compared to 911s I can see why the opposition gets increasingly dismissive of big powerful family cars - but the cars themselves are good bits of engineering and offer a lot more driving enjoyment than some heap of s
t like a Skoda Octavia ever will.
I never thought I would see the day, I hear what you are saying about the 640d and I like it to look at and the interior is nice and we got one because of its low end shove and overall pace and comfort at covering big miles and that job it does very well. It talents don't stretch much further sadly though, the steering is very poor, the ride woeful(better now I have ditched the runflats though) and its size and weight mean its no fun to punt around corners and its just a wafty type car with very little reward to drive and the diesel engine obviously doesn't help its cause much either.
Read most reviews on a 640d and they all come to a similar conclusion and say its not a drivers car at all but if you are crossing continents or covering serious mileage and want reasonable MPG then it does tick the box.
cerb4.5lee said:
Agree and a Caterham or Exige are cars worth chatting about as they are exciting to drive fast or slow and are great head turners...a 640d is a tool to do a job of covering big miles with some low end shove when you want it and its talents don't go any further than that as far as I am concerned.
Again subjective. If that was a unilateral view, everyone would buy a 320d or s 520d and the 640d would sell nothing!Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff