Do you need anything more than a 320d?
Discussion
cerb4.5lee said:
I don't have an issue with an oil burner at all at 70 mph cruising and I appreciate you cant tell what pump it uses at cruising speeds, its at idle and low revs even with the windows up I have a problem with the refinement of a diesel engine.
The other day I just happened to be looking at the front left tyre on the 640d as my mrs started it up and I thought the engine was going to vibrate out of the engine bay it was that bad and that is an example of how I cant understand how people can describe a diesel as a refined engine.
I probably do give diesels too much stick and maybe my loyalties lie too much towards a petrol engine but I just cant love a diesel no matter how hard I try but as a mode of transport to cover 40k miles a year in it maybe makes sense because of the range you get with them.
You need to get yours looked at. I tried mine this morning. It was near silent after 5 secs and I could do the coin on its edge test.... It shouldn't vibrate.The other day I just happened to be looking at the front left tyre on the 640d as my mrs started it up and I thought the engine was going to vibrate out of the engine bay it was that bad and that is an example of how I cant understand how people can describe a diesel as a refined engine.
I probably do give diesels too much stick and maybe my loyalties lie too much towards a petrol engine but I just cant love a diesel no matter how hard I try but as a mode of transport to cover 40k miles a year in it maybe makes sense because of the range you get with them.
Ares said:
Wasn't the issue that the V12 weight more than a small car and kept setting itself on fire? (and gave no real fuel consumption benefit)
...and the V10 was less powerful than the 3.0 TwinTurbo (BMW and Audi)?
I have no idea, just the stats of 500bhp / 738 ft/lb appeal to me!...and the V10 was less powerful than the 3.0 TwinTurbo (BMW and Audi)?
The V10 is a bit sheeite, 4.2 (not 4.0) tdi is better
rallycross said:
Why would anyone want a rattling 4 cylinder diesel? (I've got a 320d - it's ok as a workhorse)
Bmw make very good 6 cylinder diesels , my 325d/330d E91's were so much nicer than the 320d's I've had.
But the 6 cylinder petrol BMW engine is a masterpiece compared to the noisy rattling diesel versions ( got one of them as well in 335i form and my 320d is a horrible tractor in comparison to the 335i).
Exactly. If a well tuned van engine is your thing then a 320d is great. But fuel economy be damned, an E90 330i manual is just a fabulous bit of kit and a proper BMW.Bmw make very good 6 cylinder diesels , my 325d/330d E91's were so much nicer than the 320d's I've had.
But the 6 cylinder petrol BMW engine is a masterpiece compared to the noisy rattling diesel versions ( got one of them as well in 335i form and my 320d is a horrible tractor in comparison to the 335i).
Silver940 said:
Mine too.
It's not fully hydraulic; I will try and dig out the info.Leins; the F30 has just lost something over the E90; it's gone more for comfort, less for driver involvement. The 435i is a case in point (more or less a 3 series); loads of power, nice shape but just not that fun to drive. I had a 420d Sport loan car for a week; it just wasn't much fun at all although clearly way less powerful (although also much lighter).
I think the M1/235i are the only really fun road cars BMW currently makes. The M3/4 are superb on track and ballistic but seem to struggle on real roads. The M5 is lovely but weighty as is the M6. The X M cars are just silly. The M2 could be a corker.
Tractor lad said:
Silver940 said:
Mine too.
It's not fully hydraulic; I will try and dig out the info.Leins; the F30 has just lost something over the E90; it's gone more for comfort, less for driver involvement. The 435i is a case in point (more or less a 3 series); loads of power, nice shape but just not that fun to drive. I had a 420d Sport loan car for a week; it just wasn't much fun at all although clearly way less powerful (although also much lighter).
I think the M1/235i are the only really fun road cars BMW currently makes. The M3/4 are superb on track and ballistic but seem to struggle on real roads. The M5 is lovely but weighty as is the M6. The X M cars are just silly. The M2 could be a corker.
Ares said:
You need to try a new M3 or M4. I did alongside both M135 and M235, on track and road. Different league.
So it should be for double the price. More or less the same engine, terrible traction issues and saloon/faux coupe shape rules it out. I'd get a 911 if I raided the bank funds in a rather reckless way. Ares said:
Patrick Bateman said:
1500kg is a bit conservative.
Kerb Weight 1495kg.In fairness that's a lardy whole 11kg more than the apparently amazing, new class-standard setter the Mondeo 2.0 Titanium X's 1484kg.
Ares said:
Patrick Bateman said:
1500kg is a bit conservative.
Kerb Weight 1495kg.In fairness that's a lardy whole 11kg more than the apparently amazing, new class-standard setter the Mondeo 2.0 Titanium X's 1484kg.
Wills2 said:
cerb4.5lee said:
Wills2 said:
I had a f30 318d sport for the day last week, I drove it in comparison to my F10 M5 and there is nothing wrong with the car, on 18" wheels and passive sport suspension it rode and handled well, weighs 1410kg which for a modern 5 seat 4 door saloon is remarkable and it felt nimble.
It was quiet, comfortable and efficient, happy days.
Quiet...really? were you wearing ear muffs when you were driving it! It was quiet, comfortable and efficient, happy days.
Tractor lad said:
Silver940 said:
Mine too.
It's not fully hydraulic; I will try and dig out the info.Leins; the F30 has just lost something over the E90; it's gone more for comfort, less for driver involvement. The 435i is a case in point (more or less a 3 series); loads of power, nice shape but just not that fun to drive. I had a 420d Sport loan car for a week; it just wasn't much fun at all although clearly way less powerful (although also much lighter).
I think the M1/235i are the only really fun road cars BMW currently makes. The M3/4 are superb on track and ballistic but seem to struggle on real roads. The M5 is lovely but weighty as is the M6. The X M cars are just silly. The M2 could be a corker.
Ares said:
Fastdruid said:
The only reason for a diesel is because you do lots of miles[1]......
No it's not. Try again without blinkers on If you 'like' diesels because of the torque you're really saying you like turbocharged engines. In which case turbocharged petrols are nicer (but of course worse on fuel which doesn't matter unless you're doing enough miles to make it worth it).
If you 'like' diesels because of the range it's because you're doing enough miles in one hit to make it worth it.
If you 'like' diesels because of the cost it's because you're doing enough miles to make it worth it (for low mileages the equivalent petrol will almost always be cheaper, of course there are exceptions).
There are no good reasons to own a diesel (apart from throttle lag for RobM77 and even then that's only a specific to the engines in BMW's he's interested in) over a petrol apart from because you're doing enough miles to make it worth it putting up with them.
The only exception is the person who gets a company car as a perk rather than a need and for who the badge is more important than how it drives and wants to limit the BIK costs.
Fastdruid said:
The only reason for a diesel is because you do lots of miles[1] in which case having it a better drive (or what end it's driven) is pointless, it's all about where you're sat and for the same money I would be rather sat in a top end Mondeo with a nice engine than a base 3-series with the bottom of the range engine.
If on the other you're comparing spec with spec or actually had an interesting drive and ignoring price then I'd take the 3-series (in petrol form).
[1] Or are RobM77 and have a very exacting set of requirements that are only met by a 320d.
This pretty much covers it.If on the other you're comparing spec with spec or actually had an interesting drive and ignoring price then I'd take the 3-series (in petrol form).
[1] Or are RobM77 and have a very exacting set of requirements that are only met by a 320d.
Edited by Fastdruid on Thursday 2nd July 19:46
Only reason for buying a diesel = Massive mileage and limited funds
Massive mileage = 99% of it is on the motorway or other boring roads
Motorway/boring roads = All that really matters is comfort, refinement, toys, space and economy. 'Handling' is utterly irrelevant.
Thus for me diesel and good handling are a pointless combination as is diesel and manual gearboxes for modern stuff (in old stuff their is a considerable economy penalty with autos). IMHO diesel has a place, in commercial vehicles, 4x4s and eco-barges/taxis.
As for the thread question, need comes down to practicality, cost and little else and has nothing to do with driving pleasure. As such I wouldn't need more than a 320d day to day as it's big enough but then I don't need any more than a £500 hatchback. Nobody needs a BMW when many cheaper alternatives of equal capacity exist. I'd only pay the premium for a BMW because I wanted one and I'd never want a diesel one.
Of course everybody is different, diesel BMWs are the most ubiquitous cars on the roads so clearly I am in a small minority with my requirements and opinions. If that's what people want then good for them though all the forum posts and marketing campaigns in the world aren't going to convince me that I want one too.
Ares said:
cerb4.5lee said:
I don't have an issue with an oil burner at all at 70 mph cruising and I appreciate you cant tell what pump it uses at cruising speeds, its at idle and low revs even with the windows up I have a problem with the refinement of a diesel engine.
The other day I just happened to be looking at the front left tyre on the 640d as my mrs started it up and I thought the engine was going to vibrate out of the engine bay it was that bad and that is an example of how I cant understand how people can describe a diesel as a refined engine.
I probably do give diesels too much stick and maybe my loyalties lie too much towards a petrol engine but I just cant love a diesel no matter how hard I try but as a mode of transport to cover 40k miles a year in it maybe makes sense because of the range you get with them.
You need to get yours looked at. I tried mine this morning. It was near silent after 5 secs and I could do the coin on its edge test.... It shouldn't vibrate.The other day I just happened to be looking at the front left tyre on the 640d as my mrs started it up and I thought the engine was going to vibrate out of the engine bay it was that bad and that is an example of how I cant understand how people can describe a diesel as a refined engine.
I probably do give diesels too much stick and maybe my loyalties lie too much towards a petrol engine but I just cant love a diesel no matter how hard I try but as a mode of transport to cover 40k miles a year in it maybe makes sense because of the range you get with them.
Tractor lad said:
Ares said:
You need to try a new M3 or M4. I did alongside both M135 and M235, on track and road. Different league.
So it should be for double the price. More or less the same engine, terrible traction issues and saloon/faux coupe shape rules it out. I'd get a 911 if I raided the bank funds in a rather reckless way. 
t. In every regard. HTH.Still makes your initial point utter nonsense.
Fastdruid said:
Ares said:
Fastdruid said:
The only reason for a diesel is because you do lots of miles[1]......
No it's not. Try again without blinkers on If you 'like' diesels because of the torque you're really saying you like turbocharged engines. In which case turbocharged petrols are nicer (but of course worse on fuel which doesn't matter unless you're doing enough miles to make it worth it).
If you 'like' diesels because of the range it's because you're doing enough miles in one hit to make it worth it.
If you 'like' diesels because of the cost it's because you're doing enough miles to make it worth it (for low mileages the equivalent petrol will almost always be cheaper, of course there are exceptions).
There are no good reasons to own a diesel (apart from throttle lag for RobM77 and even then that's only a specific to the engines in BMW's he's interested in) over a petrol apart from because you're doing enough miles to make it worth it putting up with them.
The only exception is the person who gets a company car as a perk rather than a need and for who the badge is more important than how it drives and wants to limit the BIK costs.
Ares said:
Fastdruid said:
Ares said:
Fastdruid said:
The only reason for a diesel is because you do lots of miles[1]......
No it's not. Try again without blinkers on If you 'like' diesels because of the torque you're really saying you like turbocharged engines. In which case turbocharged petrols are nicer (but of course worse on fuel which doesn't matter unless you're doing enough miles to make it worth it).
If you 'like' diesels because of the range it's because you're doing enough miles in one hit to make it worth it.
If you 'like' diesels because of the cost it's because you're doing enough miles to make it worth it (for low mileages the equivalent petrol will almost always be cheaper, of course there are exceptions).
There are no good reasons to own a diesel (apart from throttle lag for RobM77 and even then that's only a specific to the engines in BMW's he's interested in) over a petrol apart from because you're doing enough miles to make it worth it putting up with them.
The only exception is the person who gets a company car as a perk rather than a need and for who the badge is more important than how it drives and wants to limit the BIK costs.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff