330i v 330d

[MattOz]

Plenty of valid points here, and I think that nobody is denying the ability of either the 330d, or 330i for that matter. Lets be fair, a difference of opinion is a good thing, as if we all liked the same things, life would be pretty boring.

I suspect that later this year or early next, I'll change my car again. When this happens, and depending on fuel costs, budget etc, I'll probably end up with an E90 330d M Sport or even 335d if BMW releases it.

As all-rounders, the six cylinder diesels are hard to beat.

Matt

[535d]

m12_nathan said:

One is a diesel, that is all you need to know if you enjoy driving a car. If you are after a workhorse then fair enough but as a car to be used and enjoyed, petrol every time.

Total and utter nonsense pal.

I have owned plenty of petrol cars and some were very good, i still in fact own one now, but to dismiss diesels in that fashion shows ignorance.

I suggest you take heed of what Martin Brundle said about the 535d, for example. He is in a better position to talk about the fast cars than any of us. (He was talking about a standard example, by the way, with some 62bhp and 93lbs-ft less than my DMS-mapped car!)
Some of the things Martin said then;

1) The 535d was immense. A to B, i think it is probably the best thing i've ever owned, because it has so much torque. It's just so effortlessly easy. I set an alarm on mine for 99 mph and you just come out of a roundabout and it goes Ping. You think, no, it's just not possible that i'm doing 100 mph already. Just stunning acceleration and because it goes 400 mileson a tank of gas, literally as an A to B car, i don't know of anything that is quicker.

2) People said to me "you've got to chip the 535d", but it was so outrageously fast, i couldn't see the point.

3)I don't think the new M5 is as fast as the 535d A to B, because you have to work at it. In real world motoring, i suspect the 535d could be a quicker car, because you have to stir the M5 up.

4) The funny thing is you come off a roundabout in the M5 and unless you are in the right one of the seven gears you can be in trouble. There was a 200 diesel Marc who just hauled away from me.

Many petrol cars are gutless unless you thrash them and Martin's points illustrate just how far oil burners have come over the past 10 years.

[m12_nathan]

F1 drivers are renowed for being clueless when it comes to road cars, I wonder how much discount be got for saying that I think he is mental and would also put money on an M5 wasting (and I do mean wasting) a 535d if the driver was actually trying (eg 8k rpm and changing gear properly).

How many of us, if actually trying to go fast would be in the wrong one of seven gears, it's paddle shift, easy to be in the right gear, he is just lazy. I'm sure if you came off a roundabout in 7th gear at 20 mph in an F1 car a diesel would pull away, doesn't make the diesel a faster car though.

As I've said so many times on this thread, each to their own, MattOz has correctly stated that if everyone liked the same things the world would be boring.

PS. power below 4k rpm is only important if your rev limiter is at 4k rpm

[m12_nathan]

PPS. What is the 60-100 time on a 535d, how about a 100-150 figure? Are these more relevant to the "real world", or how about the diesel owners favourite, 45-46 in 6th gear, maybe that is the important benchmark you are talking about?

[dannylt]

100 to 150 is an absolutely pointless thing to measure for a road car IMHO. And my old Radical which would paste any road car around a UK race track could barely do 140! 50-70 and 70-90 are more relevant. Even 0-100. Anyway, enough anti-diesel spleen; you clearly don't get it

As for an ex-Noble driver calling an F1 driver clueless! :-) Maybe he really gets the distinction between road and race track.

danny


>> Edited by dannylt on Thursday 26th January 11:11

[m12_nathan]

[DoctorD]

Let me stir up this argument some more. There's no doubt that on paper the diesel engined cars make a very compelling argument, and with a good auto box much of the diesel engines tardiness or being stuck in the wrong gear is eliminated. But my preference for petrol engines comes from two things; I've still never driven a diesel engined BMW that was as smooth and as aurally satisfying as the best petrols, and if overtaking I like (or is that need) and engine that doesn't suddenly tail off in it's power delivery. Granted that the 535d is better than most in this respect, but that's not exactly difficult to achieve.

I have one of BMW's finest petrol engines in my 4.8is X5 and my brother coincidentally has a 3.0d X5 (chipped by DMS), so in theory he has a little more torque than mine. Now I've switched from one car to the other and what I notice most is how rough the 3.0d sounds (and feels) compared to my 4.8. I found a similar situation (actually worse) when I drove an X3 with the 2.0d for a day. The noise when compared to a silky smooth 6 or V8 is the thing that wears me down over time, and despite enjoying the turbocharged thump in the back I would glady trade this for a little peace and quiet. The 535d I found worse than the straight 3.0d in this respect. Aurally there's clearly no comparison, but I haven't heard anyone claiming that diesels sound better than petrol, so I'll let that one lie. Performance wise my 4.8is will disappear into the distance compared to the chipped 3.0d, whilst the initial shove in the back is comparable unlike the 3.0d which does this for around 2000 revs, the 4.8is will continue in this way for a further 4000 revs, so inevitably it's faster. This is most noticeable when entering a motorway or overtaking a line of cars.

So I like diesels for just getting about and using daily, but find that I'm giving up too much of what I enjoy and still don't find them a match for the driving enjoyment from a good petrol. On the subject of fuel economy, I average between 19-21 mpg in my V8 whilst the 3.0d if driven in a similar manner is averaging between 25-27mpg. I can get 27mpg in my 4.8is if driven steadily at motorway speeds, so the gap is around 5mpg in the diesel's favour, but then it costs more to fuel and is slower and noisier. I'll take the petrol thanks.

[m12_nathan]

535d said:

Nathan, your whole angle shows you have an axe to grind. Sorry, but most of the petrol competition is gutless, unless you thrash the nuts off the engine and Martin is absolutley correct in what he says, he just mirrors what i have found, actually out there on the road.

Why do you find "thrashing the nuts of it" such a chore? I enjoy driving, the interaction with the car, the perfect timing of gear changes, the blipping of the throttle as I change down apporaching a bend, the engine making a lovely noise as it closes in on 8200rpm. I said within my first few posts that as a workhorse diesels are great, I personally don't find them anywhere near as enjoyable to drive. The only time I would have one is if I was forced to have a company car and had to pay the tax, and then I'd have a petrol car at home to use for fun.

You saying a petrol car is slow if you only use 4k rpm is the same as me saying yours is if you only use 2k rpm, I assume that you use more than that? No different to me using more than 4k. Pointless arguement. If both cars use all the available revs I know which is the more enjoyable to drive for me, if you think differently then fair play to you.

[z3stu]

Got a 330d has to be one of the best everyday cars I have owned. Good on mpg and great on the motorway with all that torque.



Stu

[535d]

The point is that peaky petrol engines are tiring to drive after the initial honeymoon period, because their useful urge is only there when you thrash it. As a ROAD car, people drive 10-tenths very rarely and so for the vast majority of the time, a car like mine is way better than a similarly priced/bhp petrol car.
My Honda S2000 got sold, because although well made and fast if you really went for it, the manic engine became irksome after a while.

I had a Caterham R500, which gets away with a lack of any torque, because of it's ultra light weight, but heavy cars which need serious revs to get anywhere quick are not my idea of fun.

Nathan, what car/s do you own at the moment, as a matter of interest?

After many years of driving in the UK, in Europe and also for several years in the USA, i can say hand on heart that the 535d is almost certainly the best car i have owned, everything considered. Either that or my old Lotus Carlton, which for it's day was incredible.

[535d]

z3stu said:

Got a 330d has to be one of the best everyday cars I have owned. Good on mpg and great on the motorway with all that torque. Stu

I had one myself and they are great, the new 231 bhp version must be awesome.

Nathan, diesels workhorses? Take a look at some figures;


BMW M3. £47,000. 343bhp. 269lbs-ft


DMS 535d £40,000 334bhp 506lbs-ft


Tell me my car is just a workhorse!

;-)

[dannylt]

m12_nathan... I think we get your drift now. And indeed, for a CSL vs 330d I might almost agree with you, but the CSL is too compromised (slow and lardy).

[DoctorD]

dannylt said:

m12_nathan... I think we get your drift now. And indeed, for a CSL vs 330d I might almost agree with you, but the CSL is too compromised (slow and lardy).

Now this debate is simply going from the sublime to the ridiculous. If you're describing a CSL as being 'slow' (with a 0-100mph in 10 seconds, or 30-70 in a little over 4 seconds) then you've lost all perspective. Yes, a 330d will make a 330i feel flat as will a 530d against a 530i.

I would have hoped by now that the penny had dropped (for all you diesel owners) that it's not the 'peak' torque figure that's ultimately important, but the volume of torque (under the curve) over a spread of revs. Yes, a diesel will make you 'feel' like it's quick and in many cases it is quick, but don't get carried away thinking you've bought a supercar.

I remember driving a E60 530d when they first came out and I'd travelled to my dealer in my 4.6is X5 at the time. There was supposedly more peak torque in the 530d but it was of the 'blink and you've missed it' type. I kept saying to my dealer friend next to me, "where the hell's the torque gone?", I felt I'd been cheated.

Now there's no doubt that the 535d has greatly improved on this torque spread (although I found it less refined as a consequence), but look what happens to that precious fuel economy. Many people I know who have gone from M3 to 535d have found they were getting better fuel mileage in their M3.

Putting it in perspective, the diesel makes the more rational choice for most people's daily driving. It's more relaxing power delivery (compared to an equivalent sized engine petrol) is unquestionable, but there are still downsides which many of us still find hard to live with.

[535d]

I am getting 28-32 mpg generally and 40 mpg on a run. I hardly think that an M3 would do that.

No, the CSL is not slow by any means, but is pretty gutless at low revs all the same. Which i am not prepared to tolerate in my cars unless they are track cars in the main like my Caterham R500 was.

9000 revs is alright on a racetrack, but in the real wolrd on the public street, the diesel is the better engine.

[dannylt]

DoctorD said:

Now this debate is simply going from the sublime to the ridiculous. If you're describing a CSL as being 'slow' (with a 0-100mph in 10 seconds, or 30-70 in a little over 4 seconds) then you've lost all perspective. Yes, a 330d will make a 330i feel flat as will a 530d against a 530i.

If you believe there is a fundamental difference between road & track driving! How often do you do 0-100 on track? The CSL is a compromise between the two; better the diesel for road and lightweight screamer for track. Anyway... in the end... the question first posed is best answered by saying get as much time in both before making your own mind up!

[DoctorD]

535d said:

I am getting 28-32 mpg generally and 40 mpg on a run. I hardly think that an M3 would do that. No, the CSL is not slow by any means, but is pretty gutless at low revs all the same. Which i am not prepared to tolerate in my cars unless they are track cars in the main like my Caterham R500 was. 9000 revs is alright on a racetrack, but in the real wolrd on the public street, the diesel is the better engine.

I get 32-33 mpg on a run in the CSL. Many 535d owners I speak with are averaging early 20s when they use the performance.

If you believe a CSL is gutless unless revved then you must have driven one with a broken induction flap (which they all experience at one time in their lives). The CSL is notably more torquey than a standard M3 and can be driven very quickly by using less than 4500 revs. That's also what makes it so much fun to send sideways into a bend, there's plenty of torque to unstick the Cup tyres whenever and wherever you want.

I personally don't use my CSL as a daily driver, instead preferring the more relaxing power delivery of my 4.8is X5 or Alpina Roadster. So yes, I prefer these for daily driving but they don't even begin to compare if I purely wish to drive for fun.

Either way torque isn't the exclusive preserve of a diesel engine...

[DoctorD]

dannylt said:

If you believe there is a fundamental difference between road & track driving! How often do you do 0-100 on track? The CSL is a compromise between the two; better the diesel for road and lightweight screamer for track. Anyway... in the end... the question first posed is best answered by saying get as much time in both before making your own mind up!

I do 20-150mph very regularly on track, what's your point?

Every car is a compromise! If you'd spent many years racing as I have, then you'd treat every car in its own context, all cars are lardy and compromised on track - even Caterhams.

The sum-up from this debate seems to be that diesels have come a long way in recent years, and in many cases are as good or better than equivalent petrol engined cars, but the petrol engine is still not redundant despite this, and offers many qualities that the modern diesel still does not offer. So caveat emptor, and don't fall into any one gospel that preaches a universal elixir.

[m12_nathan]

Torque at the wheels is important, not at the flywheel. My car may only have 278 odd lb of torque but it doesn't need silly high gearing because it revs so may well have a better torque at the rear wheels figure.

As DoctorD says, the area under the curve is far more important, as is the ability to maintain that torque through revs (to give power).

We won't agree on this so lets just call it quits, I prefer driving petrol cars, you prefer diesel, isn't diversity great

[dannylt]

No no no - I prefer light revvy petrols on track, and occasionally on road. Diesel for the rest of the time, and towing the above! Maybe I'm just getting old

[dannylt]

DoctorD said:

Every car is a compromise! If you'd spent many years racing as I have, then you'd treat every car in its own context, all cars are lardy and compromised on track - even Caterhams.

Err, there is a small matter of degree of compromise there - 1300kg vs 500kg, but I absolutely agree on context. In any case we have digressed a lot.