What is happening at EVO magazine?

[daveco]

GeniusOfLove said:

trackdemon said:

s m said:

trackdemon said:

trackdemon said:

SS427 Camaro said:

BMW E46 330D Sport Coupe - Renault Clio RS182
Anyone recall if EVO ( or any other mags ) did a test feature on these 2 icons ?

They definitely tested E46 albeit a long time ago as a first drive when that model was new.... Good luck finding it! I have every mag, but I'm sorry, I'm not going looking for it (ok maybe as an E46 fan I will )

I caved. Just had a quick look at my library - the only mag I keep. It's issue 21, 'Driven' 330Ci (Clubsport is, fittingly, issue 46). Verdict: 5 stars "Worlds best 6 in worlds best junior exec". Worth checking ebay as there's some excellent features in that one including a cool Capri 2.8i piece

Is that the i rather than the d though

'fraid so. Safe to say you can supplant the overall verdict though - in that era the 330d had by far the best engine in its class. I have one & have driven several 30i and your swapping power for torque - lots of torque. For a derv, the 330d revs quite well but of course isn't like the 330i, equally the 330i couldn't dream of the torque punch the 330d gives from 1500rpm onwards. Probably not much in it in terms of acceleration in real world driving, but 10-15mpg better in the 330d (I usually get 45mpg, 50mpg quite easy on a long run)

Those mid sized six cylinder diesel engines completely finished off mid sized six and smaller eight cylinder engines for good reason. I'm no fan of soot chuckers but I'd have had a 330d over a NASP 330i all day long, and not just because of the economy difference.

I've owned both the 3.0 litre BMW diesel and petrol and there is no comparison imo.

The 3.0 diesel is an excellent diesel but the 3.0 petrol NA unit is brilliant. The latter will get nearly the same fuel economy figures, sounds far better, has a 6.5k - 7,250rpm redline (depending on vintage), and has a far smoother delivery of power.

[gareth h]

A rather nice heartfelt piece by Jethro in this months mag.

[trackdemon]

daveco said:

I've owned both the 3.0 litre BMW diesel and petrol and there is no comparison imo.

The 3.0 diesel is an excellent diesel but the 3.0 petrol NA unit is brilliant. The latter will get nearly the same fuel economy figures, sounds far better, has a 6.5k - 7,250rpm redline (depending on vintage), and has a far smoother delivery of power.

With respect, it absolutely won't.

It does sound better, not sure the relevance of a particular redline if the gearing matches the power/torque delivery (which it very much does in the 330d). Also disagree with the last comment - both have exceptionally smooth power delivery.

[cerb4.5lee]

I'm really enjoying reading the 330d versus 330i chat. I've had both the E90 330d and E90 330i, and I'm another one who would take the 330d over the 330i ultimately. I think the N52 is a lovely engine don't get me wrong, but the 330d is the better overall car for me though.

[Patrick Bateman]

Have you all lost the plot?

Cards on the table, I haven't driven a 330d but the M54 in my 330Ci and 530i was bloody lovely for a run of the mill engine.

Mid range punch this, economy that- not a chance I'd prefer the diesel. A 3 litre petrol 6 might not have the immediate punch the diesel can give but it's got ample and life's too short to swap that unless you're doing big miles.

I'd class 30mpg as frugal as it is.

Edited by Patrick Bateman on Wednesday 13th March 17:01

[5 In a Row]

Patrick Bateman said:

Have you all lost the plot?

I'm on my second 3 litre diesel - currently a 2017 430d and in the past a 2002 530d.
While I'd agree it is a lovely engine with a nice growl the way it runs out of puff at less than 4k rpm is a little frustrating given the 5.5k redline (in the later car at least).
Having said that its, obviously, significantly more torquey than the 3 litre petrol.

So you just have to drive them in a different manner - I've never owned a petrol one but did drive my brother-in-law's E46 330Ci a number of times. Thrashing it hard was never a chore

[s m]

Patrick Bateman said:

Have you all lost the plot?

Obviously as time has gone on, EVO still …writes about ”the thrill of driving ….. but diesel torques for many… “

[havoc]

For a daily driver the extra (at the wheel) torque and the economy (plus the apparently-greater shove in the back vs a very linear petrol-6) make a lot of sense, but the 30d is still a less thrilling engine when you want to have fun.

...so it comes down to how and where you drive (& how far). If I lived in the wilds and didn't have a bad rush-hour commute, I'd probably still go for the 30i, but if it's majority M-way slog or other mundane st, or if I did 15k+ a year, then (even as someone who would choose petrol over diesel 9/10 times) it would be the 30d.

...with a screaming weekend toy, obviously!

[s m]

Anyway, if you want EVO’s lowdown on the E46 330D ……take a look in the June 2000 issue - there’s an intro bit on it ……. And although it’s not the 182 …. There is a good hot hatch test featuring the 172 and rivals

[trackdemon]

Patrick Bateman said:

Have you all lost the plot?

Cards on the table, I haven't driven a 330d but the M54 in my 330Ci and 530i was bloody lovely for a run of the mill engine.

Mid range punch this, economy that- not a chance I'd prefer the diesel. A 3 litre petrol 6 might not have the immediate punch the diesel can give but it's got ample and life's too short to swap that unless you're doing big miles.

I'd class 30mpg as frugal as it is.

Edited by Patrick Bateman on Wednesday 13th March 17:01

So what you're saying is, you don't know what you're talking about but your going to proffer an opinion anyway. Whilst ignoring several here who've driven/owned both? Gotta love PH, dontcha

[andrew]

trackdemon said:

So what you're saying is, you don't know what you're talking about but your going to proffer an opinion anyway. Whilst ignoring several here who've driven/owned both? Gotta love PH, dontcha

welcome to the internet

[Patrick Bateman]

Oh give over. It's my opinion, you don't have to agree. It's quite possible to form them without driving everything under the sun.

Unless of course you think you know me better than I know myself and I would actually prefer the diesel?

[trackdemon]

andrew said:

trackdemon said:

So what you're saying is, you don't know what you're talking about but your going to proffer an opinion anyway. Whilst ignoring several here who've driven/owned both? Gotta love PH, dontcha

welcome to the internet

Thought I'd covered that in my last 4 words

[trackdemon]

Patrick Bateman said:

Oh give over. It's my opinion, you don't have to agree. It's quite possible to form them without driving everything under the sun.

Unless of course you think you know me better than I know myself and I would actually prefer the diesel?

Give over indeed fella; I'm just taking the piss like I would if we were sat in a pub Everyone is entitled to their opinion - obviously - but several here have actual experience of both (myself included). I don't think it unreasonable to put more faith in the opinions of folks who've actually experienced both things than someone who hasn't.....YMMV. Have a great day!

[waremark]

Another on the side of diesel here - for most purposes. When I drive a naturally aspirated petrol, I very rarely scream up to high revs, indeed I spend most of my time between 2k and 4k. Between 2k and 4k a 3 litre turbo diesel is superb. Nowadays, 6 cylinder diesels even sound quite good, with the exception of outside when cold, and petrols don't sound anything like as good as they used to. It has to be admitted that a strong turbo petrol is pretty much the best of both worlds to drive - but my new M2 is only getting 23 mpg, and stopping frequently to fill up is a nuisance.

[daveco]

trackdemon said:

daveco said:

I've owned both the 3.0 litre BMW diesel and petrol and there is no comparison imo.

The 3.0 diesel is an excellent diesel but the 3.0 petrol NA unit is brilliant. The latter will get nearly the same fuel economy figures, sounds far better, has a 6.5k - 7,250rpm redline (depending on vintage), and has a far smoother delivery of power.

With respect, it absolutely won't.

It does sound better, not sure the relevance of a particular redline if the gearing matches the power/torque delivery (which it very much does in the 330d). Also disagree with the last comment - both have exceptionally smooth power delivery.

I've owned every iteration of the E46 so I have experience with them!

The 330 petrol with the 6 speed manual will easily get 40mpg on the motorway.

The 330 diesel's gearing and power delivery are in no way as smooth or broad as the petrol iterations.

[GeniusOfLove]

Yes you can get 40mpg at a steady motorway cruise but you what's a 330d getting doing that, 55mpg?

What matters are actual achievable economies over a tank, where the 330d is around 50% better than the 330i.

Yes the 330i is smoother and makes a nicer noise but for typical saloon car driving the torque and power delivery of a 330d suits most drivers better, particularly as cars got heavier.

One sort of engine (mid sized nasp petrol) is extinct in new cars and the other is still clinging on, that tells you something.

[havoc]

GeniusOfLove said:

One sort of engine (mid sized nasp petrol) is extinct in new cars and the other is still clinging on, that tells you something.

1) People are lazy?

Nat-asp petrols are very 'old school' - you have to work them more (vs a turbo diesel especially) and very few people outside our community understand rev limits and gearing - get them to drive a TDi and a n/a petrol back to back and they'll say the diesel is quicker because it shoves harder (rate of change of torque) and it picks up earlier in the rev range. Usually utter tosh (if you drive the cars properly), but that's the perception.


2) People care about visible spend - a n/a petrol costs more to run week-in / week-out. So a diesel also feels cheaper (despite usually costing more to buy). Until something goes wrong and needs fixing, but again most people have blind spots about that sort of thing. (For reference, on big miles a diesel IS cheaper, and on small miles it might be slightly cheaper if nothing goes wrong (:cough: DPF))


3) ...and most importantly, emissions regs. The way emissions regs are set favours lower-revving engines AND favours automated boxes over manuals. It's quite telling that a n/a petrol will have proportionately a much worse emissions figure but a much closer actual mpg figure. Emissions regs are what has killed n/a petrols, otherwise Ferrari, Porsche et. al. (Honda?!?) would all still be offering them.

[cerb4.5lee]

GeniusOfLove said:

Yes you can get 40mpg at a steady motorway cruise but you what's a 330d getting doing that, 55mpg?

What matters are actual achievable economies over a tank, where the 330d is around 50% better than the 330i.

Yes the 330i is smoother and makes a nicer noise but for typical saloon car driving the torque and power delivery of a 330d suits most drivers better, particularly as cars got heavier.

One sort of engine (mid sized nasp petrol) is extinct in new cars and the other is still clinging on, that tells you something.

You're spot on about the weight for sure, and BMWs ended up getting a bit too heavy for their naturally aspirated engines for me.

I complained about the weight and the torque to weight ratio in the E92 M3 I had. Plus it was a genuine laugh out loud moment for myself and my missus...the first time that I slammed my foot to the floor in the auto E90 330i I had as well. The revs rose right up, and it made a bit of noise, but the car didn't seem to move forward very much! The E90 330d auto had properly spoilt us in that regard I reckon in comparison.

[cerb4.5lee]

havoc said:

GeniusOfLove said:

One sort of engine (mid sized nasp petrol) is extinct in new cars and the other is still clinging on, that tells you something.

1) People are lazy?

Nat-asp petrols are very 'old school' - you have to work them more (vs a turbo diesel especially) and very few people outside our community understand rev limits and gearing - get them to drive a TDi and a n/a petrol back to back and they'll say the diesel is quicker because it shoves harder (rate of change of torque) and it picks up earlier in the rev range. Usually utter tosh (if you drive the cars properly), but that's the perception.


2) People care about visible spend - a n/a petrol costs more to run week-in / week-out. So a diesel also feels cheaper (despite usually costing more to buy). Until something goes wrong and needs fixing, but again most people have blind spots about that sort of thing. (For reference, on big miles a diesel IS cheaper, and on small miles it might be slightly cheaper if nothing goes wrong (:cough: DPF))


3) ...and most importantly, emissions regs. The way emissions regs are set favours lower-revving engines AND favours automated boxes over manuals. It's quite telling that a n/a petrol will have proportionately a much worse emissions figure but a much closer actual mpg figure. Emissions regs are what has killed n/a petrols, otherwise Ferrari, Porsche et. al. (Honda?!?) would all still be offering them.

I remember when I first got the Caterham, and I was worried that a 140bhp 1.8 litre naturally aspirated engine wasn't going to be enough for it. In my head 140bhp is basically nothing, however because it only has around 550kg to shift, it still feels really peppy though. It gets a shift on far more than I was expecting it to for sure.

Whereas in contrast, the 370Z never feels like it has around 350bhp(with the mods it has on it) from its 3.7 NA V6, because it is so heavy. If I go to overtake either a petrol or diesel turbo car, and they stick their foot down, I'm almost left out there hanging, and I have to try really hard to get past them for example. A heavy kerbweight can kill performance I reckon(initially anyway).