Do you need anything more than a 320d?

Do you need anything more than a 320d?

Author
Discussion

Tractor lad

150 posts

105 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
The reasons I bought a 335d and not a 335i weren't anything to do with mpg.

RobM77

35,349 posts

233 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
cerb4.5lee said:
Tractor lad said:
Unless you push a car, a Mondeo will feel similar. And they do have a great chassis.
RWD only shows advantage once you reach a certain level of chassis capability; to 90% of people, a Mondeo full of toys probably feels as good if not better.

The 180bhp is enough to have a bit of fun with RWD but really it should be made law that 3 series have six cylinders.
Agree with both sentences! thumbup
So what about a 115bhp mk1 MX5 then? Does that have 'enough power' to enjoy the rear drive chassis?! Plenty of rear drive cars have less than 180bhp (or the 320d's power to weight ratio) and are great to drive: most early Elises, MR2, Élan, Alfa 75 etc.

Whilst it's true that Joe Public may not realise or care which wheels are driven and what the mass layout of their car is, to a lot of people, me included, it's a key defining feature of any car and no, you don't need a certain amount of power to tell. If you did, and more power somehow 'unlocked' the chassis, then I'd be driving a 330d, but I'm not and an R500 would somehow handle better than an R300, which of course it doesn't. There are aspects of handling linked to power, namely handling on corner exit in extremis, but for most road driving and for the rest of the corner prior to the exit it's irrelevant how much power you have.

cerb4.5lee

30,196 posts

179 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
RobM77 said:
So what about a 115bhp mk1 MX5 then?
Why did you have to mention that pile of turd! I think its a toss up of which I dislike most...a 4 pot diesel engine or a MX5...

Tractor lad

150 posts

105 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
Rob; an MX5 is much lighter. It doesn't need much power.
The mk3 MR2 was always more fun though.

ORD

18,086 posts

126 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
Tractor lad said:
The reasons I bought a 335d and not a 335i weren't anything to do with mpg.
I think that is extremely unlikely. If you are telling it played no part in your thinking, that is very surprising. You would have to have quite strange tastes to take that tractory rattlebox engine over a nice, smooth (but boring) 335i.

lostkiwi

4,584 posts

123 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
Fastdruid said:
Exactly which is best dynamically is neither here not there when you are tooling back and forth down the motorway, neither has a bad chassis and both have good handling. That the 3-series might be better at 10/10's is irrelevant to 99.9% of all drivers 99.9% of the time.
Even then it can be moot as I know which I'd prefer to drive in wet, icy or snowy weather and it wouldn't be the RWD BMW.
Of course the BMW fans will then say the X system cures that but of course then its no longer the finely balanced RWD chassis....

cerb4.5lee

30,196 posts

179 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
swerni said:
The reason I leased an E220 Estate was 100% for economy.

The reason I chopped it in for for a 5.0 V8 was it was as dull as fk.
Love it!

wormus

14,509 posts

202 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
can't believe this thread is still going. It's starting to burn my eyes. 19 pages about one of the most boring, ubiquitous cars available. What's PH coming to?

ORD

18,086 posts

126 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
lostkiwi said:
Even then it can be moot as I know which I'd prefer to drive in wet, icy or snowy weather and it wouldn't be the RWD BMW.
Of course the BMW fans will then say the X system cures that but of course then its no longer the finely balanced RWD chassis....
If you find a RWD car difficult to drive in the wet, it's probably better for everyone that you be limited to shopping cars and town driving!

StuntmanMike

11,671 posts

150 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
wormus said:
can't believe this thread is still going. It's starting to burn my eyes. 19 pages about one of the most boring, ubiquitous cars available. What's PH coming to?
We are talking about the finest throttle responding cars of all time here, how can you be so blind.;)





Sorry Rob, couldn't help it.biggrin

RobM77

35,349 posts

233 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
lostkiwi said:
Fastdruid said:
Exactly which is best dynamically is neither here not there when you are tooling back and forth down the motorway, neither has a bad chassis and both have good handling. That the 3-series might be better at 10/10's is irrelevant to 99.9% of all drivers 99.9% of the time.
Even then it can be moot as I know which I'd prefer to drive in wet, icy or snowy weather and it wouldn't be the RWD BMW.
Of course the BMW fans will then say the X system cures that but of course then its no longer the finely balanced RWD chassis....
This thread is just a catalogue of misconceptions. I've been driving rear drive cars since I was about 23 and for most of that time have lived in rural areas - snow and ice aren't an issue. More to the point, are you aware how much snow they get in BMW's homeland of Bavaria? Or what about Volvo up until they went FWD? They're Swedish!

And no, you don't need to be at ten tenths to benefit from RWD, that's another common misconception.

RobM77

35,349 posts

233 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
Tractor lad said:
Rob; an MX5 is much lighter. It doesn't need much power.
The mk3 MR2 was always more fun though.
I agree that the MR2 is more fun and do you know what one of the major reasons is for that difference? The weight distribution! Power is irrelevant - the mass layout of a car and the driven wheels are apparent regardless of power, which is why the Fiat Barchetta, MX5 and MR2 all drive completely differently. Besides, what do you think happens in a corner before you come on the power? Does handling somehow not apply then?

RobM77

35,349 posts

233 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
cerb4.5lee said:
RobM77 said:
So what about a 115bhp mk1 MX5 then?
Why did you have to mention that pile of turd! I think its a toss up of which I dislike most...a 4 pot diesel engine or a MX5...
You're entitled to your opinion, but I guess you realise that the MX5 won Autocar's 'best handling car of the year' twice?

lostkiwi

4,584 posts

123 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
RobM77 said:
This thread is just a catalogue of misconceptions. I've been driving rear drive cars since I was about 23 and for most of that time have lived in rural areas - snow and ice aren't an issue. More to the point, are you aware how much snow they get in BMW's homeland of Bavaria? Or what about Volvo up until they went FWD? They're Swedish!

And no, you don't need to be at ten tenths to benefit from RWD, that's another common misconception.
23? Late starter then I had my full license 12 days after my 16th birthday and have been driving for over 35 years so forget trying to use that to show how experienced a driver you are. For all I know you could be 24 now. As for being able to handle RWD I think a few years at competitive motorsports taught me more than a bit about car control. I could be boring and list results but I'm frankly not bothered - suffice to say at one point I was in the top 5 at national level.
My point is that BMW are notoriously poor in poor conditions as are Mercs, irrespective of how much snow they get in Bavaria or Stuttgart. It's not the RWD that makes BMWs or Mercs poor in snow it's the weight distribution. That's why Porsches manage better and why FWD cars don't struggle as much. Both have more weight over the driving wheels.
And Ord... As it happens I currently have a 4WD vehicle, a RWD vehicle and a FWD vehicle and my wife has a FWD BMW (aka Mini). All of them get driven all through the year.

RobM77

35,349 posts

233 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
lostkiwi said:
RobM77 said:
This thread is just a catalogue of misconceptions. I've been driving rear drive cars since I was about 23 and for most of that time have lived in rural areas - snow and ice aren't an issue. More to the point, are you aware how much snow they get in BMW's homeland of Bavaria? Or what about Volvo up until they went FWD? They're Swedish!

And no, you don't need to be at ten tenths to benefit from RWD, that's another common misconception.
23? Late starter then I had my full license 12 days after my 16th birthday and have been driving for over 35 years so forget trying to use that to show how experienced a driver you are. For all I know you could be 24 now. As for being able to handle RWD I think a few years at competitive motorsports taught me more than a bit about car control. I could be boring and list results but I'm frankly not bothered - suffice to say at one point I was in the top 5 at national level.
My point is that BMW are notoriously poor in poor conditions as are Mercs, irrespective of how much snow they get in Bavaria or Stuttgart. It's not the RWD that makes BMWs or Mercs poor in snow it's the weight distribution. That's why Porsches manage better and why FWD cars don't struggle as much. Both have more weight over the driving wheels.
And Ord... As it happens I currently have a 4WD vehicle, a RWD vehicle and a FWD vehicle and my wife has a FWD BMW (aka Mini). All of them get driven all through the year.
I wasn't trying to boast, so sorry if it sounded that way, I was just stating that I've been driving rear drive cars a long time and haven't found an issue with snow.

RobM77

35,349 posts

233 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
swerni said:
RobM77 said:
cerb4.5lee said:
RobM77 said:
So what about a 115bhp mk1 MX5 then?
Why did you have to mention that pile of turd! I think its a toss up of which I dislike most...a 4 pot diesel engine or a MX5...
You're entitled to your opinion, but I guess you realise that the MX5 won Autocar's 'best handling car of the year' twice?
The Skoda fabia won Autocar car of the year this year.
Does that make it the best car on sale?
last year was the Peugeot 308, another outstanding car

Doen't make the MX5 the best handling car either
But if someone says they like the handling, you're not going to tell them they're 'wrong' are you? That's what I'm trying to say -I'm defending the right to have an opinion and a preference, nothing more.

Tractor lad

150 posts

105 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
ORD said:
I think that is extremely unlikely. If you are telling it played no part in your thinking, that is very surprising. You would have to have quite strange tastes to take that tractory rattlebox engine over a nice, smooth (but boring) 335i.
It only rattled on start up - it made a good noise when pushed. My reasons were mainly the poor reliability of the N54 engine, I wanted to try something with serious torque and I liked the way it drove. Now I'm onto an N55 engined auto M135i, the gearbox (which seemed good at the time) was pretty slow, the low redline was a bit dull and there was no interesting exhaust sounds but we kept it for nearly six years - overall it was great car and at no time did I think "dammit, I should have got the 335i."

Current diesels are too unreliable though; I won't buy another showing that mpg ISN'T a priority. It never has been, probably never will be.The diesels we've had have all been pretty crap on fuel any way - Defender 110 - about 25mpg. 335d - about 30. VW California camper - around 25.

Edited by Tractor lad on Friday 3rd July 21:21

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
Tractor lad said:
ORD said:
I think that is extremely unlikely. If you are telling it played no part in your thinking, that is very surprising. You would have to have quite strange tastes to take that tractory rattlebox engine over a nice, smooth (but boring) 335i.
It only rattled on start up - it made a good noise when pushed. My reasons were mainly the poor reliability of the N54 engine, I wanted to try something with serious torque and I liked the way it drove. Now I'm onto an N55 engined auto M135i, the gearbox (which seemed good at the time) was pretty slow, the low redline was a bit dull and there was no interesting exhaust sounds but we kept it for nearly six years - overall it was great car and at no time did I think "dammit, I should have got the 335i."

Current diesels are too unreliable though; I won't buy another showing that mpg ISN'T a priority. It never has been, probably never will be.The diesels we've had have all been pretty crap on fuel any way - Defender 110 - about 25mpg. 335d - about 30. VW California camper - around 25.

Edited by Tractor lad on Friday 3rd July 21:21
Wasn't it your dad's 335d? wink

Tractor lad

150 posts

105 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
St John Smythe said:
Wasn't it your dad's 335d? wink
That was dxb not me. I bought mine myself.

TurboHatchback

4,152 posts

152 months

Saturday 4th July 2015
quotequote all
Tractor lad said:
It only rattled on start up - it made a good noise when pushed. My reasons were mainly the poor reliability of the N54 engine, I wanted to try something with serious torque and I liked the way it drove. Now I'm onto an N55 engined auto M135i, the gearbox (which seemed good at the time) was pretty slow, the low redline was a bit dull and there was no interesting exhaust sounds but we kept it for nearly six years - overall it was great car and at no time did I think "dammit, I should have got the 335i."

Current diesels are too unreliable though; I won't buy another showing that mpg ISN'T a priority. It never has been, probably never will be.The diesels we've had have all been pretty crap on fuel any way - Defender 110 - about 25mpg. 335d - about 30. VW California camper - around 25.

Edited by Tractor lad on Friday 3rd July 21:21
Is it Vladimir reborn? scratchchin