Do you need anything more than a 320d?
Discussion
s m said:
ZX10R NIN said:
As competent as the 320D is I'd pick the C250 if I was looking for this type of car.
They tested the Jag XE 2litre diesel this week in the mags and it was well received too
I prefer the 3 series to the C Class to drive, but both remain good competitors to each other. The XE is of great interest to me and I very much look forward to driving one, although it's a shame only one diesel model seems available with an manual gearbox - I was looking forward to going back to petrol if Jaguar can avoid the throttle lag issues that BMW have, but an automatic is completely out of the question for me. An automatic on the range topping V6 is sacrilege! Nevertheless, I'm looking forward to having a genuine choice, rather than being backed into a corner where only the 3 series diesel suits my requirements.On another note, I think it's very sad that a 181/187bhp, 295lb-ft car can exist with a superbly balanced longitudinal FE/RWD layout (compromising interior space and cost, but optimising handling) and a six speed manual gearbox and people can be so negative about it, even suggesting cars like the Mondeo and Mazda 6 as alternatives!! The reasons given are things like how common they are, or how the styling and image isn't up to it. Could there be other reasons, such as xenophobia or snobbery? I could be forgiven that I'm reading Mumsnet sometimes, such is the focus on image, styling, sound etc and how devoid the focus is on weight distribution, which wheels are driven and how the suspension is designed. Whatever happened to a good old interest in the mechanicals of a car and the way a car corners? I realise the 320d is a diesel, but if you need a four seater saloon, then to find one with such a dynamically perfect layout and with adequate performance should be a wonderful thing, not a heavily criticised thing. Where too is the interest in the Jaguar XE? A driver focused option in a sea of dull front wheel drive cars and it barely gets a mention on here. I really don't fit in!
And maybe if they do enough special editions in nice colours each car will be 'rare' and desirable too Looking at the numbers, it is hard to have much of an issue with the 320d. Objectively, it seems to be a great combination of economy, brisk ish performance and a good chassis, low tax etc. For a company car driver who HAS to have a new car, I can see why you might choose one.
It's just too dull for me though, life is too short. As a private buyer, I would never ever consider a 320d. I would only consider a last of line NA straight 6 3 series, which I know you can't buy from BMW anymore but I would never buy a new one anyway. (When were the last NA straight 6 BMWs made?).
Or, instead of spending £15k on a used 3 series, get a older 630i for peanuts, and have a couple of grand stashed away for repairs. Honestly if I had to do 35k miles a year, I would get a 530/630i for about £8 - 9k. I love the fact people are put off by "big engined thirsty petrols", keeps the prices down.
RobM77 seems to not care about the engine and more about the handling/chassis etc. For me, the engine is far more important. Each person has their own priorities I guess.
It's just too dull for me though, life is too short. As a private buyer, I would never ever consider a 320d. I would only consider a last of line NA straight 6 3 series, which I know you can't buy from BMW anymore but I would never buy a new one anyway. (When were the last NA straight 6 BMWs made?).
Or, instead of spending £15k on a used 3 series, get a older 630i for peanuts, and have a couple of grand stashed away for repairs. Honestly if I had to do 35k miles a year, I would get a 530/630i for about £8 - 9k. I love the fact people are put off by "big engined thirsty petrols", keeps the prices down.
RobM77 seems to not care about the engine and more about the handling/chassis etc. For me, the engine is far more important. Each person has their own priorities I guess.
strangehighways said:
Looking at the numbers, it is hard to have much of an issue with the 320d. Objectively, it seems to be a great combination of economy, brisk ish performance and a good chassis, low tax etc. For a company car driver who HAS to have a new car, I can see why you might choose one.
It's just too dull for me though, life is too short. As a private buyer, I would never ever consider a 320d. I would only consider a last of line NA straight 6 3 series, which I know you can't buy from BMW anymore but I would never buy a new one anyway. (When were the last NA straight 6 BMWs made?).
Or, instead of spending £15k on a used 3 series, get a older 630i for peanuts, and have a couple of grand stashed away for repairs. Honestly if I had to do 35k miles a year, I would get a 530/630i for about £8 - 9k. I love the fact people are put off by "big engined thirsty petrols", keeps the prices down.
RobM77 seems to not care about the engine and more about the handling/chassis etc. For me, the engine is far more important. Each person has their own priorities I guess.
I think I fall somewhere between you two in terms of priorities.It's just too dull for me though, life is too short. As a private buyer, I would never ever consider a 320d. I would only consider a last of line NA straight 6 3 series, which I know you can't buy from BMW anymore but I would never buy a new one anyway. (When were the last NA straight 6 BMWs made?).
Or, instead of spending £15k on a used 3 series, get a older 630i for peanuts, and have a couple of grand stashed away for repairs. Honestly if I had to do 35k miles a year, I would get a 530/630i for about £8 - 9k. I love the fact people are put off by "big engined thirsty petrols", keeps the prices down.
RobM77 seems to not care about the engine and more about the handling/chassis etc. For me, the engine is far more important. Each person has their own priorities I guess.
I can't get my head around people who claim to be car enthusiasts but are obsessed with appearance and whether or not the car is rare. I am completely with Rob on that one. If every other car on the road was a 3 series, I would still buy one and would be pleased that people are buying good cars.
The Mazda 6 is a good car, though, so I wouldn't at all criticise someone for choosing that.
ORD said:
strangehighways said:
Looking at the numbers, it is hard to have much of an issue with the 320d. Objectively, it seems to be a great combination of economy, brisk ish performance and a good chassis, low tax etc. For a company car driver who HAS to have a new car, I can see why you might choose one.
It's just too dull for me though, life is too short. As a private buyer, I would never ever consider a 320d. I would only consider a last of line NA straight 6 3 series, which I know you can't buy from BMW anymore but I would never buy a new one anyway. (When were the last NA straight 6 BMWs made?).
Or, instead of spending £15k on a used 3 series, get a older 630i for peanuts, and have a couple of grand stashed away for repairs. Honestly if I had to do 35k miles a year, I would get a 530/630i for about £8 - 9k. I love the fact people are put off by "big engined thirsty petrols", keeps the prices down.
RobM77 seems to not care about the engine and more about the handling/chassis etc. For me, the engine is far more important. Each person has their own priorities I guess.
I think I fall somewhere between you two in terms of priorities.It's just too dull for me though, life is too short. As a private buyer, I would never ever consider a 320d. I would only consider a last of line NA straight 6 3 series, which I know you can't buy from BMW anymore but I would never buy a new one anyway. (When were the last NA straight 6 BMWs made?).
Or, instead of spending £15k on a used 3 series, get a older 630i for peanuts, and have a couple of grand stashed away for repairs. Honestly if I had to do 35k miles a year, I would get a 530/630i for about £8 - 9k. I love the fact people are put off by "big engined thirsty petrols", keeps the prices down.
RobM77 seems to not care about the engine and more about the handling/chassis etc. For me, the engine is far more important. Each person has their own priorities I guess.
I can't get my head around people who claim to be car enthusiasts but are obsessed with appearance and whether or not the car is rare. I am completely with Rob on that one. If every other car on the road was a 3 series, I would still buy one and would be pleased that people are buying good cars.
The Mazda 6 is a good car, though, so I wouldn't at all criticise someone for choosing that.
In response to StrangeHighways, I'm no fan of diesel engines and have no particular desire to rattle my way off the driveway every morning, but if the alternative is a petrol engine with a time delay between input and output, even with the lovely BMW straight 6s you mention, I'm far happier with the diesel, as at least I can still enjoy the corners. Unlike a lot of posters here, I've owned lots of BMW straight sixes, and a diesel, so I'm in a fairly good position to comment. I also place a very definite distinction between the public road and the racetrack. On the public road, given modest enough tyres, I can still enjoy myself in corners, because thankfully policemen don't hide around every corner watching for people enjoying themselves. Dare to do 70mph in an NSL C, B or A road though, or 90mph on a motorway, and you'll be severely punished and eventually banned. My main interest in cars will always be handling, but that fact about law enforcement in this country makes me even more interested in handling and less on the engine for the public road. On track, racing is a sport all about cornering, so the chassis is still my main priority, but with the opportunity to drive as fast as I like on track, the engine becomes of more interest to me. For the road though, give me a nice chassis first and foremost and an engine that responds well and gets the car up to the speed limit and I'm happy with that. The 320d, in that sense, is all the car I need and want (or the XE or the C Class). If I want a screaming 8,000rpm supercharged car that'll do 0-100 in under 9 seconds, I've got one in the garage and I can drive it any time I want, but actually I only drive it on the road to get to race tracks. I can't believe that with that choice and with my car history people so vehemently question my preferences - we're all individuals. I have the choice and I choose the 320d - that's the car I'm taking to work tomorrow and I'm very happy with that.
Edited by RobM77 on Sunday 5th July 23:08
mondeoman said:
yonex said:
Don't worry, soon everything will be front wheel drive, diesel and automatic. I'm sure everyone will be happy then 
No it won't, the tide is turning...
strangehighways said:
cerb4.5lee said:
They take forever to get to 100 mph yet whenever I have come across one on the road they are always shifting, the mid range torque is the benefit it seems.
Many of the 2 litre diesels seem really quick on the road, but the 0 - 100 mph always look very disappointing. For example, the 220d coupe from 90-110.... 4th gear 17 seconds, 5th gear 10 seconds, 6th gear 12 seconds. Similar story with the 320d
RobM77 said:
mondeoman said:
yonex said:
Don't worry, soon everything will be front wheel drive, diesel and automatic. I'm sure everyone will be happy then
No it won't, the tide is turning...Mondeos and Vectras are different as there just isn't the market for 'premium' performance versions (as proved by sales figures) so there's no point developing a chassis that can deal with big power hence FWD.
The glug of torque gives the impression of speed but it's a short lived thing. The average buyer will be short shifting fearing the incoming power, if they kept their foot in they would run into the brick wall that defines diesel power. Is there a better diesel than the 320, maybe. Is there a better diesel estate that you can buy in a manual, haven't seen it myself.
RobM77 said:
ORD said:
strangehighways said:
Looking at the numbers, it is hard to have much of an issue with the 320d. Objectively, it seems to be a great combination of economy, brisk ish performance and a good chassis, low tax etc. For a company car driver who HAS to have a new car, I can see why you might choose one.
It's just too dull for me though, life is too short. As a private buyer, I would never ever consider a 320d. I would only consider a last of line NA straight 6 3 series, which I know you can't buy from BMW anymore but I would never buy a new one anyway. (When were the last NA straight 6 BMWs made?).
Or, instead of spending £15k on a used 3 series, get a older 630i for peanuts, and have a couple of grand stashed away for repairs. Honestly if I had to do 35k miles a year, I would get a 530/630i for about £8 - 9k. I love the fact people are put off by "big engined thirsty petrols", keeps the prices down.
RobM77 seems to not care about the engine and more about the handling/chassis etc. For me, the engine is far more important. Each person has their own priorities I guess.
I think I fall somewhere between you two in terms of priorities.It's just too dull for me though, life is too short. As a private buyer, I would never ever consider a 320d. I would only consider a last of line NA straight 6 3 series, which I know you can't buy from BMW anymore but I would never buy a new one anyway. (When were the last NA straight 6 BMWs made?).
Or, instead of spending £15k on a used 3 series, get a older 630i for peanuts, and have a couple of grand stashed away for repairs. Honestly if I had to do 35k miles a year, I would get a 530/630i for about £8 - 9k. I love the fact people are put off by "big engined thirsty petrols", keeps the prices down.
RobM77 seems to not care about the engine and more about the handling/chassis etc. For me, the engine is far more important. Each person has their own priorities I guess.
I can't get my head around people who claim to be car enthusiasts but are obsessed with appearance and whether or not the car is rare. I am completely with Rob on that one. If every other car on the road was a 3 series, I would still buy one and would be pleased that people are buying good cars.
The Mazda 6 is a good car, though, so I wouldn't at all criticise someone for choosing that.
If you want performance derived how about that the 6 has double wishbone front suspension (unlike the 3 or for that matter any of the BMW's which have Macpherson struts) which both reduces torque steer in FWD setups *and* keeps better control of wheel camber during cornering leading to higher corner speeds (and especially relevant in a FWD, less understeer).
The 320d has nothing performance derived. It doesn't even have an LSD (which I will add our Mazda 6 does). It has a USP of being RWD which I freely admit *is* a preferred layout however it is not perfectly weight distributed for anything other than steady state cornering, that massive anvil up front adds to a too heavy front end with even more of a polar moment. Which means it understeers on turn in and resists changes of direction, *just* like a FWD. The "performance" and "ultimate driving machine" is all in the Marketing department and you know nothing about chassis design if you believe that 50:50 is perfect.
That they are RWD *is* to do with handling but not in the way you believe, it's because about 200hp is the limit for FWD, sure you can get away with more by getting clever but you're well into the laws of diminishing returns. Trying to get something to turn and steer with that kind of power gets tricky (yes I know about the RevoKnuckle, HiPer Strut etc) but even then it's not ideal so anything that's going to be powerful (and thrusting powerfully built directors need powerful "executive" cars) will *have* to be RWD.
BMW, Mercedes etc do not make their everyday dull diesels and bottom of the range cars RWD for handling, they make them RWD because they have created a 'platform' that will take the power for the interesting engines and *that* requires RWD. Once you have a RWD chassis and everything around it why on earth would you waste money on a FWD version for the low end models even if it would result in more profit as it would be more practical and cheaper. The extra development, extra parts (so both reducing the numbers overall and increasing parts costs as well as additional inventory costs) would increase the price on the more interesting models (as they sell more of the low end stuff) and kill any profit plus of course as previously mentioned, it's a USP.
It's the exact same reason in reverse that Ford, Vauxhall, Mazda, Honda et al do not make high power versions of their saloons (as they don't sell) so there is no point them developing a RWD version as the extra development costs (one off parts costs etc) would not be recouped for a one off halo model, especially as it would bump the prices up significantly to replace all the suspension parts (oh hello M3
) and they are not perceived as "Premium" enough to do that (although I suspect something of a chicken and egg thing here and IMO a lost opportunity in the Vignale, they should have made it with a better powerplant and RWD). On a final note of "uninteresting" one of our daily drivers is on the top gear power laps board (as is for that matter the car it replaced *and* the predecessor model to our other car). Did they bother testing your model? No. Because it is dull. Duller than watching paint dry on April 11, 1954. Ours on the other hand was interesting enough to be tested round a track by Top Gear. Make of that what you will.
Quite a few good points in that strange, confrontational post 
I think you are both right...which might well annoy you both.
The FWD layout is pretty much all about cheapness; the RWD layout quite the opposite. But that obviously isn't the end of the story, as the man above points out.
You're right about the effect of that diesel lump on handling - the only 3 series that I have ever felt was reluctant to turn in / change direction was a 320d. It can be worked around, especially by staying on the brakes a bit longer, but it isn't great for dynamics.
I think you are both right...which might well annoy you both.
The FWD layout is pretty much all about cheapness; the RWD layout quite the opposite. But that obviously isn't the end of the story, as the man above points out.
You're right about the effect of that diesel lump on handling - the only 3 series that I have ever felt was reluctant to turn in / change direction was a 320d. It can be worked around, especially by staying on the brakes a bit longer, but it isn't great for dynamics.
RobM77 said:
In response to StrangeHighways, I'm no fan of diesel engines and have no particular desire to rattle my way off the driveway every morning, but if the alternative is a petrol engine with a time delay between input and output, even with the lovely BMW straight 6s you mention,
Why don't you mind the time delay you get with the diesel? Don't tell me it doesn't have it, because you'd be wrong.Mr2Mike said:
RobM77 said:
In response to StrangeHighways, I'm no fan of diesel engines and have no particular desire to rattle my way off the driveway every morning, but if the alternative is a petrol engine with a time delay between input and output, even with the lovely BMW straight 6s you mention,
Why don't you mind the time delay you get with the diesel? Don't tell me it doesn't have it, because you'd be wrong.
. Look it up on You Tube if you don't believe me - we had this before on a thread so I filmed it to prove the point. The newer models do have a delay until you fiddle with the settings to go into sport mode or whatever it's called, which removes it.T0MMY said:
Driving on snow is of course more about having the right tyres...my 4wd WRX with wide summer sports tyres was worse than FWD cars or vans I've used in the snow with narrower more treaded tyres (but not winter tyres). That said, RWD cars do struggle a bit more to get moving if they've got less weight over the driven wheels but I don't know why this even comes up as that much of an issue. The vast majority of us in the UK rarely drive in snow and even if you had a bloody skidoo, if the roads are so bad that cars are getting stuck, you're probably not going anywhere anyway as the guy in front isn't.
The vast majority of cars I've owned have been RWD and shod with track tyres or sports tyres and I can only recall being genuinely scuppered twice in a way that a more capable car on snow might have made a difference, once in an MX5 and once in a 200SX, and that's despite living in Scotland for 11 years.
Snow performance is not high on my list of priorities when buying a car.
So true. Remember seeing a test between a 5-series on winter tyres Vs a Range Rover on normal road tyres in Snow around Knockhill. The RR couldn't see where the 5 had gone within a few corners.The vast majority of cars I've owned have been RWD and shod with track tyres or sports tyres and I can only recall being genuinely scuppered twice in a way that a more capable car on snow might have made a difference, once in an MX5 and once in a 200SX, and that's despite living in Scotland for 11 years.
Snow performance is not high on my list of priorities when buying a car.
Of course, a RR on winter tyres would have reversed the exercise again.
Downside is, despite winter tyres being overall better in cool/wet conditions and below c7 degrees, the case for them in the UK is minimal. We get 2 or 3 snowy days per year.
When I had an Exige as a daily driver, it was cheaper to go and buy an old 1989 V8 Range Rover off eBay than to even attempt wet/snow appropriate wheels and boots.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff