Do you need anything more than a 320d?

[anonymous-user]

TurboHatchback said:

Is it Vladimir reborn?

It's strangely similar. Let's see it he offers several people outside

[A.J.M]

TurboHatchback said:

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?

Yup.
Already had the Defender and the overpriced vw van dropped in earlier this thread.

Hi Vladimir.


For most people, no you don't need a 320d. A focus or Qashqui would do as the majority of drivers, don't care about DBW throttle, linear engines, weight distribution or what wheels the power goes to.

They put fuel in it, crash it into things and generally treat them like st for 3 years then get a new one.

Unless they want to show off to the neighbours a bit.

Personally, yes, i need more than a 320d. So i don't have one.

[Ares]

Patrick Bateman said:

Ares said:

I didn't. I said the 320d did.

Ares said:

What car is more powerful than a 335d that is noticeably sportier/better to drive than the 1500kg 313bhp 335d?

.....and what car would you like to see a 313bhp oil burner in that would make a demonstrable difference?

I apologise. It was the 320d weight i'd looked at from earlier.

Edited by Ares on Saturday 4th July 07:41

[Ares]

p1stonhead said:

ORD said:

Sump said:

No matey, you just couldn't afford the petrol. It is honestly that simple.

Not quite. He could afford the petrol but is, like a lot of people, obsessed with mpg.

Or he just doesnt want to spend more on petrol for no reason when he sees the diesel doing the same thing as the petrol and actually, prefers it.

Personal preference is literally all that matters. Preference to a particular car cannot in any way be measured mathematically.

Rare sense of rationale on PH. Man prefers one car over another. Buys it despite PH telling him he shouldn't.

[Ares]

Sump said:

No matey, you just couldn't afford the petrol. It is honestly that simple.

No it honestly isn't. The petrol would have worked out no more expensive and likely cheaper at the mileage I do. But I just preferred the drive of the diesel. Three cars ago I looked 330i Vs 330d. Then, I preferred the drive of the petrol, so got that, despite my mileage being higher.

The only time mpg even vaguely comes into it is when I visit my Edinburgh office around once per month and it means I get the whole round trip, including visits whilst up there, without filling up. But even that wasn't a buying factor.

[anonymous-user]

Tractor lad said:

St John Smythe said:

Wasn't it your dad's 335d?

That was dxb not me. I bought mine myself.

If I recall it was the SE model as the M Sport was no good in your opinion?

[Tractor lad]

St John Smythe said:

If I recall it was the SE model as the M Sport was no good in your opinion?

More or less, yes.
M135i now so I have faux M badges all over the place... At least it's fun though and some of the M-lite kit helps it go faster.

[heebeegeetee]

lostkiwi said:

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.

Only in the UK, surely, where'll they'll be highly likely to be on the wrong tyres for 4-6 months of the years? With the right tyres for the weather they're fine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOv2g5qTpvA

I have a pal with a 330d, puts it on winter tyres come the winter, they seem to allow him to hoon about with gay abandon in all weathers that ground clearance will allow.

[s m]

Ecurie Ecosse said:

The power and stats it has makes it a pretty fast car for Joe Public.

Here are the stats for Joe Public


The 2005 320d - 163bhp



Then the 2012 320d - 181bhp



Now the smaller coupe, the 220d with 181bhp but a bit less weight

[T0MMY]

swerni said:

the MX5 the best handling car

I'm going to post this as a misrepresentative quote from you on the next MX5 thread

[cerb4.5lee]

s m said:

Ecurie Ecosse said:

The power and stats it has makes it a pretty fast car for Joe Public.

Here are the stats for Joe Public


The 2005 320d - 163bhp



Then the 2012 320d - 181bhp



Now the smaller coupe, the 220d with 181bhp but a bit less weight

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.

[StuntmanMike]

RobM77 said:

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.

Agree with Rob on this one, 28 years driving mostly RWD, never had an issue in the snow, last 10 driving BMW's , for the record I have no motorsport experiance, a two quid bag of sand from Wickes will go in the boot but not every year.

[T0MMY]

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.

[s m]

cerb4.5lee said:

s m said:

Ecurie Ecosse said:

The power and stats it has makes it a pretty fast car for Joe Public.

Here are the stats for Joe Public


The 2005 320d - 163bhp



Then the 2012 320d - 181bhp



Now the smaller coupe, the 220d with 181bhp but a bit less weight

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.

Top gear slug-offs is where they excel
Through the gears it's about 106gti pace to 3 figures

[ZX10R NIN]

As competent as the 320D is I'd pick the C250 if I was looking for this type of car.

[ORD]

Look at that power curve on the 320d. Horrid. That is not what you want at all in anything that pretends to be a driver's car.

[T0MMY]

ORD said:

Look at that power curve on the 320d. Horrid. That is not what you want at all in anything that pretends to be a driver's car.

It is if you're one of the 90% of drivers that wouldn't go beyond 4,000rpm even if they were driving an S2000 Those are the people that, understandably, think diesels are faster than petrols as a matter of course.

[Colonial]

I'd happily have one as a weekday car. 120Mile round trip 3 days a week. Would be perfect for that.

Would want something else for fun drives though.

[s m]

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

[9mm]

To be fair I need to go to the tip today and a 320D estate would be far better than anything else I have. I amstruggling to think of another situation where I'd want one. I bet the caravan club like them.