Do you need anything more than a 320d?

[RobM77]

cerb4.5lee said:

andrewparker said:

yonex said:

...everytime I drive one I want to damage it.

Think you might have 'other' issues.

I am the same as yonex and when I had my 520d I really did want to take a hammer to the engine because it was just so hateful and maybe I am not giving the 4 pot diesel engine a chance and the 6 pot diesel is better but still vibrates like a tractor when you start it and is noisy at idle.

A diesel engine of any form will only ever be a tool to do a job as far as I am concerned because they are just not nice engines to sit behind and always ruin a car as a package for me.

I think a lot of it depends on the type of driving you do. I too much prefer petrol engines to diesel, but my current driving involves a mixture of flowing B roads taken at 50-60mph, C roads at 35-50mph and motorways at a steady cruise. I have an E90 320d now and in none of those scenarios can I really hear the engine much and the NVH is no different really to the petrol engined models (in fact it's a lot lower NVH than most faster petrol BMWs due to the smaller tyres, but that's a seperate issue for another discussion). Incidentally, because I'm on the throttle the whole time I never experience turbo lag either, which is another one of my pet hates. I know my car has it, because I get it in town if I crawl up to a roundabout and then try and accelerate quickly onto it (I get monumental turbo lag then!), but I don't really do that very often, perhaps once a month at most; I'm normally barrelling into empty roundabouts at 50mph heel and toeing keeping the revs up, so there's no lag at all!

Not only that, but most of my daily driving doesn't really use any more power or torque than the 320d provides. I can even take my Lotus 2-Eleven on the same roads and not really use much more acceleration than the 320d most of the time (with respect to my license). If my driving consisted more of town centres at 0-5mph, ring roads with roundabouts to accelerate off, or A roads with straights where I could overtake (and I realise that's all common in some parts of the UK), then I'd probably be craving better NVH and more power. With my current driving though it makes no real difference what's under the bonnet. Where the differences are to me on those roads is what chassis a car has got, because I take a lot of corners, many of which are clearly sighted (e.g. my commute has several well sighted tight and twisty sliproads with a 70mph limit), and in that respect any 3 series is a million miles away from any front wheel drive car that I've driven. As for which 3 series, it doesn't really matter to me (unless it's an M3 which has different suspension).

ETA: Chris Harris lives in a similar sort of location to me I think, so he probably has empty twisty B and A roads with the odd speed camera van hiding, followed by long motorway drives.

Edited by RobM77 on Thursday 25th June 12:05

[culpz]

I do think alot of people on here have completely missed the point of this video. It's more along the lines of if you needed 1 car for the rest of your life to do everything then the 320D is pretty much it. If you look at it in that regard he does have a valid point.

I still don't agree though. Golf GTI would be what i would allocate the "everything car" with. Problem is you're always going to have some sort of bias against a certain manufacturer or model of car. Finding a perfect balance is almost impossible.

[RobM77]

culpz said:

I do think alot of people on here have completely missed the point of this video. It's more along the lines of if you needed 1 car for the rest of your life to do everything then the 320D is pretty much it. If you look at it in that regard he does have a valid point.

I still don't agree though. Golf GTI would be what i would allocate the "everything car" with. Problem is you're always going to have some sort of bias against a certain manufacturer or model of car. Finding a perfect balance is almost impossible.

Plus he does say clearly at the end of the video that the money saved with the 320d would pay for a second car. I'm far happier with a 320d and a 2-Eleven than I would be with one faster car that has a roof rack and boot etc. If anyone doesn't believe me, try an M3, RS4 or M5 etc on a race track and report back!

Edited by RobM77 on Thursday 25th June 12:09

[Mr2Mike]

RobM77 said:

Plus he does say clearly at the end of the video that the money saved with the 320d would pay for a second car.

That rather defeats the entire argument. "If I could only have one car for the rest of my life it would be a 320d, because then I could afford a second car"

[RobM77]

Mr2Mike said:

RobM77 said:

Plus he does say clearly at the end of the video that the money saved with the 320d would pay for a second car.

That rather defeats the entire argument. "If I could only have one car for the rest of my life it would be a 320d, because then I could afford a second car"

I don't want to speak for Chris, but it's probably a case of the headline sacrificing clarity for brevity, because he clearly says that in the video. In my opinion, driving is too diverse an interest to have one car that does everything. If you need to tow or carry stuff/people around, then you need a four seater saloon car, and I've never driven such a car that I would call capable and rewarding on track. Vice versa, I've never driven a good track car that will carry out the daily duties. It's bad enough trying to find a track car that's also ok on the road to get to a race track, let alone do the daily commute as well! If you're not into track driving, substitue 'off road' or whatever your interest is into the above and you'll find the same thing. That's because it's almost impossible to add some things without taking other things away (e.g. a Range Rover needs to be tall to go off road, and adding height to a car makes its handling worse; achieving a happy medium will always be a compromise). For me, multiple cars will always be the answer as it minimises the compromises to an acceptable level.

[ORD]

Having watched the video, I still think it's complete nonsense.

CH says, rightly, that the 320d isn't much fun on twisty roads (it isn't, because it doesn't rev very well compared to a petrol car), so all you are left with is "It doesn't burn much fuel". Well, that's true, but most people do so few miles that the difference between 45-50mpg (320d) and 35mpg (320i) is a few hundred quid a year, which isn't going to buy you a weekend / track toy.

And if you really do want to save up for a weekend / track toy, buy a V8 M3 for less money than a new / newish 320d! Simples.

I really cant see any argument for a 4 cyl diesel as any kind of drivers' choice unless you do lots and lots of miles during the week and have the time and money to do all your fun driving on track / weekend hooning. Even then, I think I would buy an economical petrol car instead...

[lostkiwi]

The only car I've had that could do everything was an LPG converted Toyota LandCruiser (though any similar 4WD would equally be suitable).

Goes anywhere in any conditions and will carry or tow anything asked of it. It would cruise at 90 very comfortably on a motorway and could be hustled relatively briskly down country lanes.
It wasn't overly cheap to run but with 32mpg equivalent cost it wasn't excessively bad either. And some running costs were laughably low (tyres last 30k miles at least and were £100-150 per corner for example).

I don't think any 2WD car can claim to be the only car you would ever need as it makes sweeping assumptions about what a car is used for and the conditions in which it is used.

For example if you tow a large caravan does a 320d have sufficient towing capacity at 1200-1710kg? Is it going to be able to tow a heavy boat? Could it take you skiing in the middle of the ski season on a snowy track? Will it get you back through a flooded road when the so called "1 in 100 years" floods hit every year or two as they have been? Could you drive it to the door of the romantic holiday cottage you've rented for a week in Morroch Bay?

To say ask if you need anything more is just a headline grabbing statement.

Edited by lostkiwi on Friday 26th June 11:04

[ORD]

Shoddy car journalism, but CH was just trying to be a "Man of the people" or some crap like that. I expect he actually thought it was a rattly, stinky stbox.

[RobM77]

ORD said:

Having watched the video, I still think it's complete nonsense.

CH says, rightly, that the 320d isn't much fun on twisty roads (it isn't, because it doesn't rev very well compared to a petrol car), so all you are left with is "It doesn't burn much fuel". Well, that's true, but most people do so few miles that the difference between 45-50mpg (320d) and 35mpg (320i) is a few hundred quid a year, which isn't going to buy you a weekend / track toy.

And if you really do want to save up for a weekend / track toy, buy a V8 M3 for less money than a new / newish 320d! Simples.

I really cant see any argument for a 4 cyl diesel as any kind of drivers' choice unless you do lots and lots of miles during the week and have the time and money to do all your fun driving on track / weekend hooning. Even then, I think I would buy an economical petrol car instead...

I confess I do fit into your description at the end, as I do 35-40k miles a year and love track driving. However, when I bought my 320d that wasn't the case.

I have a few comments on your post:

1) The 320d is a matter of elimination for me. Petrol BMWs have a lag on the throttle which I find unacceptable. I know some people can't feel it, but I can and I can't stand it. I much prefer petrol engines (my 320d is my first ever diesel), in fact if the lag wasn't a factor I would never ever own a diesel, but given the choice of a petrol with a lag or a diesel without, I'd take the diesel every time. I've tried, I really have - I've owned two DBW petrol BMWs but both were sold because of that lag and as far as I know I've driven the whole range or 1 and 3 series cars. Moving away from BMW in the secondhand market either means something FWD (again, completely unacceptable for me) or automatic (I won't own an auto, and Lexus are all auto now and Mercs are mostly auto). Even if you find a manual Merc, the chassis isn't as rewarding as the BMW, and for me, the chassis takes utmost priority over the engine. A diesel BMW is a default choice really, until the Jag XE falls within my price range that is. What else would I drive? (genuine question!) - I can't think of anything unless I try and run a classic, which at 40k miles a year might get silly.

2) I disagree entirely with the twisty road thing - that's complete nonsense. Most A and B road corners can be taken at 90% of the speed limit, so you don't need a powerful or revvy engine to enjoy the chassis through the sweepers, you just need to gain perhaps 5 or 10mph on corner exit. Even if I take my 2-Eleven out for a blast, I'm rarely using more than 20% throttle or 4,000 revs on A and B roads, unless I break the speed limit, or deliberately slow down so I can then enjoy the acceleration. It's one of the reasons I always preferred the Elise 111S to the 111R - on the public road you need torque, not revs and power.

3) I agree with you if the person in question is buying a new 320d, but most people, me included, will be spending a lot less than that (mine was £10k for example at 3 years old with 45k miles). Mind you, even if you ignore the purchase price, you can't ignore 20-26mpg vs 50+ (I'm not sure how CH got 43, but I've just done a 2,000 mile jaunt around Europe and averaged 53mpg, and we weren't hanging around! I assume the new one is less economical). With my annual mileage, I save about £5,000 a year on the fuel alone compared to the M3. Once you factor in the more expensive tyres, insurance and servicing, it's surely more than £6,000. As for the fun car that pays for, my 2-Eleven hasn't depreciated, costs about £500 a year to service, £300 a year on tyres and £400 a year to insure - a Caterham would be even less. The other thing is that my 320d is nearly silent above 40-50mph - it's even quieter than my friend's S Class (yes, really!), whereas the M3 roars on its fat tyres. At a steady 70mph cruise, power is irrelevant, but the difference in road noise is very relevant. I've spent a while with an M3, so have made a genuine decision there. Yes, if money was no object I'd probably endure the motorway noise for that lovely engine, but for me it's simply not worth giving up my 2-Eleven and £6k a year for - even if I could keep the 2-Eleven I don't think I'd pay £6,000 a year extra to enjoy that V8 in brief moments of illegality.

[9mm]

A 320D, as my only car? Good grief.

[Mike22233]

RobM77 said:

(I'm not sure how CH got 43, but I've just done a 2,000 mile jaunt around Europe and averaged 53mpg, and we weren't hanging around! I assume the new one is less economical).

Really? Did you only watch part's of the video? Perhaps something to do with the car having 3 people at least, loads of luggage and accelerating from 90mph to 130-140mph!

[RobM77]

Mike22233 said:

RobM77 said:

(I'm not sure how CH got 43, but I've just done a 2,000 mile jaunt around Europe and averaged 53mpg, and we weren't hanging around! I assume the new one is less economical).

Really? Did you only watch part's of the video? Perhaps something to do with the car having 3 people at least, loads of luggage and accelerating from 90mph to 130-140mph!

Sorry, I explained the above in more detail earlier in the thread. Just to recap, we were two up, loaded to the rafters (boot and back seats) and cruising at 85-90mph out of Germany and around 100-120mph in Germany, plus alpine roads at our destination. I expected less from Harris experimenting with the car and having a bit more weight, but I was surprised it was quite so different. My assumption that the newer one is less economical is also based on a poster who said his wife's one is averaging 43 as well.

[cerb4.5lee]

ORD said:

I expect he actually thought it was a rattly, stinky stbox.

This is exactly how he must feel about it I agree and I haven't experienced any where near the quality motors Chris has yet that is exactly how I felt about my 520d, for years I have always thought an engine makes a car...owning a 2.0d only helped with this.

I took a gamble and thought I would try a 4 pot diesel...it was a gamble just not worth taking and if you don't do many miles avoid a diesel for sure.

[Mr2Mike]

RobM77 said:

I don't want to speak for Chris, but it's probably a case of the headline sacrificing clarity for brevity, because he clearly says that in the video. In my opinion, driving is too diverse an interest to have one car that does everything. If you need to tow or carry stuff/people around, then you need a four seater saloon car, and I've never driven such a car that I would call capable and rewarding on track. Vice versa, I've never driven a good track car that will carry out the daily duties.

Very few people ever take a car on a track, I suspect even on here it will be a small fraction of the membership.

I don't buy the "throttle lag" thing as an excuse to buy a diesel. The drive by wire throttle in the petrol may well have some small amount of lag, but diesels are also drive by wire and also have a turbo so lag on them is also inevitable. If you want the economy of the diesel, just say so rather than making feeble excuses.

[ORD]

RobM77 said:

I confess I do fit into your description at the end, as I do 35-40k miles a year and love track driving. However, when I bought my 320d that wasn't the case.
...

All good points in the rest of what you said, but your introductory paragraph makes it largely immaterial to 90% + of drivers who do far, far fewer miles than you do.

I would guess that most drivers (insofar as they notice either) dislike turbo lag more than they dislike throttle lag. Throttle lag is more transient (usually), and it isnt terribly problematic unless you are using quite fast and delicate throttle adjustments to stabilise the car a bit...i.e. the kind of skilled driving that almost no road users can be expected to be doing and which, I regret to say, is unnecessary unless you are a bit closer to the limits of grip than you should be on a public road (unless the sight lines are brilliant).

As for revving, this really does matter to a lot of people: a 320d is fine with the 8ZF box, but I would never consider driving one for pleasure with a manual box - 1 or 2 gear changes during an overtake or nasty clatter in a lower gear would get very tiresome very quickly.

As I think I have said before, you drive on some quite unusual roads, Rob. Most of the rural roads I drive anywhere in England have (1) quite a few 30 and 40mph corners (anything much less tight than that for road driving is a "bend" in my book), (2)30mph limits in parts and, crucially, (3) a lot of dawdlers who need to be overtaken. So what you want is a rev-happy engine to ring out 2nd and 3rd between corners, at NSL limit signs and for overtaking.

By contrast, who really cares what the engine is or how it sounds when you are cruising along at 60mph or 70mph and 2000 revs? Any modern turbo engine is pretty much silent and highly economical for that kind of driving, so the 320d is just a good chassis at that point - the engine is irrelevant. And who needs a good chassis on a motorway or dual carriageway?

So, we are left with this: the 320d is a good car if you (1) hate throttle lag (but that makes the F 3 series a no-go because it has very pronounced throttle lag), (2) drive mostly on very fast A and B roads, (3) don't need to overtake much and (4) love cornering balance more than anything else about a car... In other words, it is the perfect daily for you, Rob but not many other people.

[Mike22233]

RobM77 said:

Sorry, I explained the above in more detail earlier in the thread. Just to recap, we were two up, loaded to the rafters (boot and back seats) and cruising at 85-90mph out of Germany and around 100-120mph in Germany, plus alpine roads at our destination. I expected less from Harris experimenting with the car and having a bit more weight, but I was surprised it was quite so different. My assumption that the newer one is less economical is also based on a poster who said his wife's one is averaging 43 as well.

I very much doubt the newer car is less economical!

[RobM77]

Mr2Mike said:

RobM77 said:

I don't want to speak for Chris, but it's probably a case of the headline sacrificing clarity for brevity, because he clearly says that in the video. In my opinion, driving is too diverse an interest to have one car that does everything. If you need to tow or carry stuff/people around, then you need a four seater saloon car, and I've never driven such a car that I would call capable and rewarding on track. Vice versa, I've never driven a good track car that will carry out the daily duties.

Very few people ever take a car on a track, I suspect even on here it will be a small fraction of the membership.

I don't buy the "throttle lag" thing as an excuse to buy a diesel. The drive by wire throttle in the petrol may well have some small amount of lag, but diesels are also drive by wire and also have a turbo so lag on them is also inevitable. If you want the economy of the diesel, just say so rather than making feeble excuses.

You're getting a bit confused there, both about the electronic lag/latency and the turbo lag. DBW doesn't automatically mean a throttle lag; my 2-Eleven has DBW and no lag (as do most racing cars these days), as does my 320d. It's DBW with modern petrol BMWs that's the problem, apart from the M3. I was only chatting yesterday to a poster on another thread who can't stand the DBW latency with the petrol engines - it's a common thing that puts people off the non-M petrol models. As for turbo lag; that's completely non-existent in the sort of driving I do where the revs are kept up - you only get it if you're off the throttle for a period and suddenly demand lots of power, for example crawling in traffic and then gunning it onto a roundabout, or decelerating for ages and then coming onto the throttle.

I've taken the time to explain my my genuine reasons - if you don't believe it then so be it, but don't tell me that I'm making feeble excuses, especially not when a 330i will do 35-40mpg and petrol is cheaper than diesel - do the maths! (or just believe me, after all I've owned 4 petrol straight six BMWs, I'm not exactly unfamiliar with the differences!).

[Mike22233]

RobM77 said:

You're getting a bit confused there, both about the electronic lag/latency and the turbo lag. DBW doesn't automatically mean a throttle lag; my 2-Eleven has DBW and no lag (as do most racing cars these days), as does my 320d. It's DBW with modern petrol BMWs that's the problem, apart from the M3. I was only chatting yesterday to a poster on another thread who can't stand the DBW latency with the petrol engines - it's a common thing that puts people off the non-M petrol models. As for turbo lag; that's completely non-existent in the sort of driving I do where the revs are kept up - you only get it if you're off the throttle for a period and suddenly demand lots of power, for example crawling in traffic and then gunning it onto a roundabout, or decelerating for ages and then coming onto the throttle.

I've taken the time to explain my my genuine reasons - if you don't believe it then so be it, but don't tell me that I'm making feeble excuses, especially not when a 330i will do 35-40mpg and petrol is cheaper than diesel - do the maths! (or just believe me, after all I've owned 4 petrol straight six BMWs, I'm not exactly unfamiliar with the differences!).

Forget the maths!
What about the noise of a straight 6 v's diesel.

[RobM77]

Mike22233 said:

Forget the maths!
What about the noise of a straight 6 v's diesel.

Oh yes, I definitely miss the sound of my Z4 Coupé as it barked through the revs, or the creamy rasp of my 330ci.

It's all down to priorities though and I simply won't accept a lag between my right foot and the engine, which is why I sold both the 330ci and Z4 Coupé. I love a nice engine as much as the next man, and share a love of engines, speed, noise etc with most petrolheads. Above all though is my love of driving, and a car simply must have a direct connection between my right foot and the engine.

[9mm]

Mr2Mike said:

RobM77 said:

I don't want to speak for Chris, but it's probably a case of the headline sacrificing clarity for brevity, because he clearly says that in the video. In my opinion, driving is too diverse an interest to have one car that does everything. If you need to tow or carry stuff/people around, then you need a four seater saloon car, and I've never driven such a car that I would call capable and rewarding on track. Vice versa, I've never driven a good track car that will carry out the daily duties.

Very few people ever take a car on a track, I suspect even on here it will be a small fraction of the membership.

I don't buy the "throttle lag" thing as an excuse to buy a diesel. The drive by wire throttle in the petrol may well have some small amount of lag, but diesels are also drive by wire and also have a turbo so lag on them is also inevitable. If you want the economy of the diesel, just say so rather than making feeble excuses.

Quite. It's about the economy, stupid. I've owned diesels - for the economy. There is no other reason.