Do you need anything more than a 320d?
Discussion
RobM77 said:
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!!!
This.yonex said:
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.
This where the BMW tweaked ZF 8-speed auto is a peach. Close ratios, plenty of them, no drop off (in the 3-litre anyway), plus in sport mode the changes are as instantaneous most dual clutch jobs.A quick jump into a Jag or even the Audi with effectively the same 'box shows that much of the performance benefit is the box as much as the engine.
Ares said:
This where the BMW tweaked ZF 8-speed auto is a peach. Close ratios, plenty of them, no drop off (in the 3-litre anyway), plus in sport mode the changes are as instantaneous most dual clutch jobs.
A quick jump into a Jag or even the Audi with effectively the same 'box shows that much of the performance benefit is the box as much as the engine.
+1.A quick jump into a Jag or even the Audi with effectively the same 'box shows that much of the performance benefit is the box as much as the engine.
One thing that BMW absolutely nailed with the 320d (and probably the other diesels) is matching the engine perfectly with the ZF box (and vice versa). If you drive a manual BMW these days, you are pretty much losing out on a lot of the R&D - all the work to make engine and box work together to get the best performance and efficiency.
(I still bought a manual BMW, but I recognise that my choice there is left-field and hard to justify except on the grounds that I like manual cars.)
ORD said:
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.
Isn't the overall weight and proportion of it over the front wheels basically the same as the other 3-series with similar power?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.
Wouldn't have thought the 4-pot diesel sits any further forward than a straight 6
Tractor lad said:
I'm not aware of a throttle delay in my M135i - almost the opposite. What I was aware of was the slow throttle response of all the diesels I've had, including the 335d.
We're going round in circles here!! We've covered this several times before on this thread and countless times on other threads, and I've even posted videos demonstrating the points as clearly as I can. One last time though:The turbo diesel models have turbo lag, which will cause a long delay (several seconds) if you're off the throttle for a while and then suddenly demand lots of power (e.g. queuing for a roundabout and then suddenly going for a gap). Think early 911 Turbo or similar. What they (BMW diesels that I've driven that is) don't have is an electronic latency between initial input and initial engine response. For driving down a twisty road between 50 and 60mph (99% of my non-motorway driving), you might as well be in a traditional cable throttle car.
The petrol models that I've driven all suffer an electronic time delay between throttle input and engine response, but the turbocharged one that I tried (135i - the one with two turbos) didn't seem to suffer much turbo lag at all. Twisty roads are a waste of time with such a setup (brake, turn-in and then you're forced to coast for most of the bend until the throttle jerks in somewhere just after the apex! I did the maths on another thread with a measured delay of 0.75 secs and a typical corner speed and length), but if you're crawling in traffic and suddenly want a gap, you'll be fine, other than the short DBW hesitation of course.
I drive on motorways and in the countryside on C, B and A roads, so I'm either doing a steady 70mph
or I'm going between 50 and 60mph. I therefore hardly need any power and torque at all, but I do want instant response over small throttle openings to enjoy controlling the car through corners. This explains my choice of car and why I don't need anything more. If you live in or near a town and have lots of roundabout dual carriageway sprints etc (30mph-70mph), or are one of the myriad of people who have picked up the bad habit of coasting or accelerating through corners (and then come for track day instruction when you keep spinning your Caterham etc), then you'll probably favour a petrol engine.s m said:
Isn't the overall weight and proportion of it over the front wheels basically the same as the other 3-series with similar power?
Wouldn't have thought the 4-pot diesel sits any further forward than a straight 6
No idea. I says what I sees Wouldn't have thought the 4-pot diesel sits any further forward than a straight 6
I don't experience the same thing in my car (320i so pretty much identical power to the 320d). Some of that may be down to it having the better suspension - M Sport - but it manifests as more reluctance to change direction.Incidentally, the 320d ED is to be avoided like the plague - those tyres, that suspension, ED mode...all utterly unforgiveable in a driver's car.
s m said:
ORD said:
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.
Isn't the overall weight and proportion of it over the front wheels basically the same as the other 3-series with similar power?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.
Wouldn't have thought the 4-pot diesel sits any further forward than a straight 6
Incidentally, BMWs offer the least understeer of any car I've owned - less than transverse FWD obviously, but also less than a mid engined car like my 2-Eleven or single seaters and also less than a Caterham, which has the engine further forward. Of course, all of those cars can be neutralised by changing driving technique or setup, but there's something I find very satisfying at mild road speeds about the near 50:50 (and reasonable polar moment) of a good FE/RWD layout like the 3 series. It's personal taste I guess, but labelling one with understeer is a very odd accusation.
On a final note, the newer cars seem to need M Sport to get that lovely balance back that the older cars (E90 and previous) had as standard.
RobM77 said:
The reason I mentioned the otherwise excellent Mazda 6 is that equating it, and the Mondeo, to the 3 series shows a very deep ignorance of chassis design.
Because race car. This is just silly, anyone would think you were talking about a car that wasn't powered by a 2 litre diesel engine.Bah - plenty of 3ers understeer. A combination of the soft suspension (which you mention) and crappy run-flats. My parents' E93 335i loves to push wide slightly, and it needs throttle to neutralise it. I imagine it would be easy enough to fix with different tyres and tightening up the suspension, but it is there.
I think a bad driver would find a MR car more neutral - my Cayman seems to corner neutrally whether or not you balance it, whereas a FE/RWD car needs to be driven properly (and is rewarding for that reason). A mid-engine car is extremely flattering at moderate speeds because it has no clear handling bias (aside from the usual safety understeer, but you have to push insanely hard to find that).
Nonetheless, it is amazing how much fun BMW can engineer into a 1700kg estate car. I had a fast drive along some country roads in my wife's car the other day, and it genuinely drives like a big fat sports car at times.
I think a bad driver would find a MR car more neutral - my Cayman seems to corner neutrally whether or not you balance it, whereas a FE/RWD car needs to be driven properly (and is rewarding for that reason). A mid-engine car is extremely flattering at moderate speeds because it has no clear handling bias (aside from the usual safety understeer, but you have to push insanely hard to find that).
Nonetheless, it is amazing how much fun BMW can engineer into a 1700kg estate car. I had a fast drive along some country roads in my wife's car the other day, and it genuinely drives like a big fat sports car at times.
Ares said:
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.
For a given set of equivalent setups a FWD car will be superior to a RWD car. In the event a FWD car cannot get moving up a hill the simple expedient of reversing it up will often give a hefty improvement in grip allowing it to get past the hill before turning round and continuing forwards. Reversing up a slippery hill puts all the weight and uses weight transfer to gain traction. Old Beetles are excellent in snow because they have so much weight over the driving wheels.
Old Minis did very well in the snow in the Monte Rallies even though they had minimal ground clearance and pokey little wheels simply because they had so much weight over the driving wheels.
When the first FWD vehicles appeared they were not cheap - the design was more complex and costly than RWD of the time hence RWD cars became the defacto - because RWD cars were cheap to build.
It wasn't really till Citroen in 1934 released the Traction Avant that FWD started to become more commonplace and then in 1948 with the release of the 2CV and Saab 92 it became 'cheap' enough to become commonplace in a vehicle for the masses. The real take up of FWD didn't happen until the release of the Mini - a design that would not have been possible with FE/RWD.
The big advance that made FWD cars possible was the invention of the Rzeppa type CV joint in 1926, though they took some time to catch on in automotive manufacturing due to the relative cost and fragility compared to simple RWD systems.
The packaging efficiencies of FWD is why manufacturers now use FWD as the defacto for most vehicles. Simplicity of construction on production lines is also improved as the entire engine/transmission can be assembled in one piece before being fitted to the vehicle. The same would be possible for RE/RWD but even though RE designs are potentially even cheaper than FWD designs they have not caught on in modern manufacturing (notable exception being Smart).
The Elan M100 is an excellent example of how a FWD car can provide a driving experience as good as any RWD car. There are plenty of others that are also renowned for an excellent chassis and where the question of FWD/RWD never crops up - Integra Type R for example. The original Min had class leading handling for its time, as did the MK1 Golf GTi, Peugeot 205GTi etc.
There is no denying that its easier to get a FE/RWD chassis to feel more 'sporty' but in terms of the ultimate layout a ME/RWD is still going to be the best due to its lower polar moments of inertia. For 95% of the car buying population the 'sporty' feel of a chassis isn't even in the top ten of their requirements. For most people its behind the mundane things like fuel economy, reliability, price, image, insurance costs, road tax, visibility, interior space, interior gadgetry etc. For a small number of people it will appear higher in the lists but then those people often demand more than the chassis (a nice free revving sweet sounding engine for example.
There are several folk have said diesels are for motorway miles and not much else and frankly I have to agree to a certain extent. Off the motorway on a nice mountain pass nothing compares to a good free revving responsive petrol engine in a well balanced responsive chassis (of either FWD or RWD in any of front engined, mid engined or rear engined configurations). For that reason for me no diesel will ever be the only car I'll ever need no matter what badge it wears.
Edited by lostkiwi on Monday 6th July 11:28
Regarding the snow, what you say is of course true, but bear in mind you're just talking about traction to accelerate. Once up to speed you'll want to stop or corner, and in that respect FE/FWD and FE/RWD are on a similar footing. The overall advantage goes to FE/FWD of course though, because of that traction advantage and the ability to vector the power on steeply cambered roads.
If, like me, you live in the south, so experience a couple of weeks of snow at max, and are a car enthusiast who loves driving, then it makes sense to choose your car based on your preference for the other 50 weeks of the year and fit winter tyres for winter, which also offer a huge advantage in safety for average conditions in the winter months.
If, like me, you live in the south, so experience a couple of weeks of snow at max, and are a car enthusiast who loves driving, then it makes sense to choose your car based on your preference for the other 50 weeks of the year and fit winter tyres for winter, which also offer a huge advantage in safety for average conditions in the winter months.
Edited by RobM77 on Monday 6th July 11:54
lostkiwi said:
Off the motorway on a nice mountain pass nothing compares to a good free revving responsive petrol engine in a well balanced responsive chassis (of either FWD or RWD in any of front engined, mid engined or rear engined configurations). For that reason for me no diesel will ever be the only car I'll ever need no matter what badge it wears.
Hmm.Are there many mountain passes in the Midlands?
lostkiwi said:
Ares said:
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.
<snip>
Edited by lostkiwi on Monday 6th July 11:28
heebeegeetee said:
lostkiwi said:
Off the motorway on a nice mountain pass nothing compares to a good free revving responsive petrol engine in a well balanced responsive chassis (of either FWD or RWD in any of front engined, mid engined or rear engined configurations). For that reason for me no diesel will ever be the only car I'll ever need no matter what badge it wears.
Hmm.Are there many mountain passes in the Midlands?
That becomes the point. Selecting a car for the one in a year when you get to 'use' a car as you really wish, just makes it overly compromised for the other 364 days of the year.
That's what saw me swap an Exige daily driver for a 330i 8 years ago. The Exige was amazing, 30,000 miles over two years, loved loved loved it. Spent a fortune on tyres but it was worth it......except that of my 12 miles commute, it often only saw over 5,000rpm and/or 40mph for 5% of the journey. I sat there one evening, in traffic, staring at the back of a Mondeo bumper for 40 mins realising that my 'racer for the road' wasn't - it was just a b
d uncomfy hack for 99% of the time.RobM77 said:
Regarding the snow, what you say is of course true, but bear in mind you're just talking about traction to accelerate. Once up to speed you'll want to stop or corner, and in that respect FE/FWD and FE/RWD are on a similar footing. The overall advantage goes to FE/FWD of course though, because of that traction advantage and the ability to vector the power on steeply cambered roads.
If, like me, you live in the south, so experience a couple of weeks of snow at max, and are a car enthusiast who loves driving, then it makes sense to choose your car based on your preference for the other 50 weeks of the year and fit winter tyres for winter, which also offer a huge advantage in safety for average conditions in the winter months.
The only caveat to that is that the average RWD will have better steering feel than the average FWD, in my experience anyway. Helps a lot in the snow.If, like me, you live in the south, so experience a couple of weeks of snow at max, and are a car enthusiast who loves driving, then it makes sense to choose your car based on your preference for the other 50 weeks of the year and fit winter tyres for winter, which also offer a huge advantage in safety for average conditions in the winter months.
Edited by RobM77 on Monday 6th July 11:54
Downside to RWD is that majority of RWD cars have fatter tyres than the majority of FWD cars making them even worse in the snow.
Ares said:
heebeegeetee said:
lostkiwi said:
Off the motorway on a nice mountain pass nothing compares to a good free revving responsive petrol engine in a well balanced responsive chassis (of either FWD or RWD in any of front engined, mid engined or rear engined configurations). For that reason for me no diesel will ever be the only car I'll ever need no matter what badge it wears.
Hmm.Are there many mountain passes in the Midlands?
That becomes the point. Selecting a car for the one in a year when you get to 'use' a car as you really wish, just makes it overly compromised for the other 364 days of the year.
That's what saw me swap an Exige daily driver for a 330i 8 years ago. The Exige was amazing, 30,000 miles over two years, loved loved loved it. Spent a fortune on tyres but it was worth it......except that of my 12 miles commute, it often only saw over 5,000rpm and/or 40mph for 5% of the journey. I sat there one evening, in traffic, staring at the back of a Mondeo bumper for 40 mins realising that my 'racer for the road' wasn't - it was just a b
d uncomfy hack for 99% of the time.The Scottish highlands have some very interesting routes, as does Wales, the Peaks, the Dales and the Lakes. So thats about 1/12th of my year spent using the mid/rear layout of the car for fun. My daily route is a mix of twisty single carriageway A road, B road and unclassified roads and the daily compromises the rest of the year are really not so bad.
Edited by lostkiwi on Monday 6th July 13:18
lostkiwi said:
Ares said:
heebeegeetee said:
lostkiwi said:
Off the motorway on a nice mountain pass nothing compares to a good free revving responsive petrol engine in a well balanced responsive chassis (of either FWD or RWD in any of front engined, mid engined or rear engined configurations). For that reason for me no diesel will ever be the only car I'll ever need no matter what badge it wears.
Hmm.Are there many mountain passes in the Midlands?
That becomes the point. Selecting a car for the one in a year when you get to 'use' a car as you really wish, just makes it overly compromised for the other 364 days of the year.
That's what saw me swap an Exige daily driver for a 330i 8 years ago. The Exige was amazing, 30,000 miles over two years, loved loved loved it. Spent a fortune on tyres but it was worth it......except that of my 12 miles commute, it often only saw over 5,000rpm and/or 40mph for 5% of the journey. I sat there one evening, in traffic, staring at the back of a Mondeo bumper for 40 mins realising that my 'racer for the road' wasn't - it was just a b
d uncomfy hack for 99% of the time.The Scottish highlands have some very interesting routes, as does Wales, the Peaks, the Dales and the Lakes. So thats about 1/12th of my year spent using the mid/rear layout of the car for fun. My daily route is a mix of twisty single carriageway A road, B road and unclassified roads and the daily compromises the rest of the year are really not so bad.
Edited by lostkiwi on Monday 6th July 13:18
Out of interest, why is free-revving such an important criteria? And more so that driven wheels? Not inflammatory, genuinely interested. For me, drivability, chassis and balance out-rank free-revving. Having driven cars that rev upto 15,000rpm, I'm not overly bothered if my road car revs to 5500 6500 or 8500? In fact, the higher revving, the less enjoyable unless on track or having a solo drive for s
t & gigglesAres said:
20 days out of 365 then
Out of interest, why is free-revving such an important criteria? And more so that driven wheels? Not inflammatory, genuinely interested. For me, drivability, chassis and balance out-rank free-revving. Having driven cars that rev upto 15,000rpm, I'm not overly bothered if my road car revs to 5500 6500 or 8500? In fact, the higher revving, the less enjoyable unless on track or having a solo drive for st & giggles
You didn't read my post very well....Out of interest, why is free-revving such an important criteria? And more so that driven wheels? Not inflammatory, genuinely interested. For me, drivability, chassis and balance out-rank free-revving. Having driven cars that rev upto 15,000rpm, I'm not overly bothered if my road car revs to 5500 6500 or 8500? In fact, the higher revving, the less enjoyable unless on track or having a solo drive for s
t & giggles1/12 of my year - you have somehow assumed thats 20 days when its nearer 35.
Also the commuting I do is not motorway, dual carriageway, or even much A road so small, nimble and decent handling are not a trial on a day to day basis either.
High revving is my preference (and by high I mean beyond what diesels do as they just don't rev and have too narrow a torque band for my tastes - they sound awful too) just as your preference is 'drivability, chassis and balance' - my choices just as those are yours.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff