Top spec 'normal' car vs. entry level 'premium'
Discussion
allergictocheese said:
With respect you're confusing my earlier use of 'labouring', as in it's burdened by a power deficit in light of its weight, with labouring as in the verb used to describe when an engine is bogging down and in difficulty (which it ought to be obvious is not what I meant).
A 518d or 520d touring labours along with an underpowered (for its weight) engine. As for the engine, I have nothing against it- I've just ordered one in a 3 Series.
A 520d is not underpowered.A 518d or 520d touring labours along with an underpowered (for its weight) engine. As for the engine, I have nothing against it- I've just ordered one in a 3 Series.
This thread is starting to go the same way as http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Seems quite a few people are stuck in the past with their "ain't no replacement for displacement" views...
Fwiw I don't think I'd want a 520d, but you can't ignore the power figures. Looking into it some more they are actually faster than the old pre-LCI E60 525d, which although 6-cylinder had a mere 177bhp, but no one moaned they were underpowered 10 years ago.
Seems quite a few people are stuck in the past with their "ain't no replacement for displacement" views...
Fwiw I don't think I'd want a 520d, but you can't ignore the power figures. Looking into it some more they are actually faster than the old pre-LCI E60 525d, which although 6-cylinder had a mere 177bhp, but no one moaned they were underpowered 10 years ago.
kambites said:
Devil2575 said:
kambites said:
Well "refinement" is the obvious answer. Certainly in the bigger cars which are meant to be luxurious.
But is a 520d really not refined? These days O suggest you'd be hard pushed to tell the difference between a diesel and petrol BMW from the passenger seat.Modern diesel engines are very impressive in terms of power and economy but I'm not convinced the engines themselves are any more refined than they were 30 years ago, although sound-proofing appears to have improved significantly.
Edited by kambites on Saturday 7th March 15:08
Factually they are more refined than they were 30 years ago. Go and take a ride in a 1980s diesel and tell me they aren't any more refined.
Cold start up maybe but sitting at 70 mph on a motorway in a 520d with the engine at about 1500 rpm, 99.9% of people wouldn't know the difference. If you know what you're listening out for then I'm sure you can tell, but that's not the point is it.
I think if there were awards for exaggeration some people would have won a medal for some of the posts in this thread.
va1o said:
This thread is starting to go the same way as http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Seems quite a few people are stuck in the past with their "ain't no replacement for displacement" views...
Fwiw I don't think I'd want a 520d, but you can't ignore the power figures. Looking into it some more they are actually faster than the old pre-LCI E60 525d, which although 6-cylinder had a mere 177bhp, but no one moaned they were underpowered 10 years ago.
More power than a 3 litre X5 when launched and 300kgs lighter. Seems quite a few people are stuck in the past with their "ain't no replacement for displacement" views...
Fwiw I don't think I'd want a 520d, but you can't ignore the power figures. Looking into it some more they are actually faster than the old pre-LCI E60 525d, which although 6-cylinder had a mere 177bhp, but no one moaned they were underpowered 10 years ago.
I'm not going to claim that a 520d is a fireball but it cruises well into 3 figures, wins most traffic light grand prix and will tackle 90% of the overtakes I'd make in my 275/hp per tonne TVR.
Edited by A900ss on Saturday 7th March 21:36
With the M25 essentially now becoming a 117 mile enforced 70mph camera zone, the other motorways will follow suit. Apart from my continental trips, I'm beginning to think the daily 535d is getting wasted on UK roads, I've travelled quite a few miles recently in a colleagues F10 520d auto, more than holds its own in most circumstances.
allergictocheese said:
A 520d Msport Touring is 105bhp per tonne (1800kg and 190bhp), which is within a couple of BHP/Tonne of a Fiat Panda 100. For reference, a 120d is more than 130bhp per tonne.
It's not the fact that it's a diesel or that it's 4 cylinder that makes it underpowered. It's the fact it's heavy and doesn't have much comparative power that makes it underpowered.
You could always go for a 518d Touring, with a staggering 83bhp/tonne, which is the same as an old shape 1.0 Citroen C1. You could then pretend that's not labouring along, too.
Power delivery is vastly different to the examples above. There really is some bollx talked about cars....It's not the fact that it's a diesel or that it's 4 cylinder that makes it underpowered. It's the fact it's heavy and doesn't have much comparative power that makes it underpowered.
You could always go for a 518d Touring, with a staggering 83bhp/tonne, which is the same as an old shape 1.0 Citroen C1. You could then pretend that's not labouring along, too.
I anybody struggles with a powerful modern 2.0 diesel, then they are just a poor driver.
MC Bodge said:
allergictocheese said:
A 520d Msport Touring is 105bhp per tonne (1800kg and 190bhp), which is within a couple of BHP/Tonne of a Fiat Panda 100. For reference, a 120d is more than 130bhp per tonne.
It's not the fact that it's a diesel or that it's 4 cylinder that makes it underpowered. It's the fact it's heavy and doesn't have much comparative power that makes it underpowered.
You could always go for another 518d Touring, with a staggering 83bhp/tonne, which is the same as an old shape 1.0 Citroen C1. You could then pretend that's not labouring along, too.
Power delivery is vastly different to the examples above. There really is some bollx talked about cars....It's not the fact that it's a diesel or that it's 4 cylinder that makes it underpowered. It's the fact it's heavy and doesn't have much comparative power that makes it underpowered.
You could always go for another 518d Touring, with a staggering 83bhp/tonne, which is the same as an old shape 1.0 Citroen C1. You could then pretend that's not labouring along, too.
I anybody struggles with a powerful modern 2.0 diesel, then they are just a poor driver.
My Focus tdci has less than 100 bhp/tonne and it isn't under powered either.
ZX10R NIN said:
3-4 years in a car of your own spec every time why have a basic Golf R when you can drive around in a well spec'd GTI for me the later would always be the only option.
I may be wrong, but I can't imagine that a "basic Golf R" is actually lacking much of importance. Smaller wheels might be better, though.MC Bodge said:
allergictocheese said:
A 520d Msport Touring is 105bhp per tonne (1800kg and 190bhp), which is within a couple of BHP/Tonne of a Fiat Panda 100. For reference, a 120d is more than 130bhp per tonne.
It's not the fact that it's a diesel or that it's 4 cylinder that makes it underpowered. It's the fact it's heavy and doesn't have much comparative power that makes it underpowered.
You could always go for a 518d Touring, with a staggering 83bhp/tonne, which is the same as an old shape 1.0 Citroen C1. You could then pretend that's not labouring along, too.
Power delivery is vastly different to the examples above. There really is some bollx talked about cars....It's not the fact that it's a diesel or that it's 4 cylinder that makes it underpowered. It's the fact it's heavy and doesn't have much comparative power that makes it underpowered.
You could always go for a 518d Touring, with a staggering 83bhp/tonne, which is the same as an old shape 1.0 Citroen C1. You could then pretend that's not labouring along, too.
I anybody struggles with a powerful modern 2.0 diesel, then they are just a poor driver.
MC Bodge said:
I may be wrong, but I can't imagine that a "basic Golf R" is actually lacking much of importance. Smaller wheels might be better, though.
I went for (over the std spec) metallic paint, sunroof, keyless, pro nav, leather, DSG and performance pack. This came in at 30k give or take a fiver.
Performance pack obviously doesn't count, but keyless, nav and leather would have niggled me the entire time I have the car. It would have been a base car with solid black paint had I gone for the R.. Some may place the extra performance as a higher priority, and they're not wrong, but the options I wanted put the R at 34-35k which was over my budget which I'd already stretched.
For me, it would be the entry level 520d all day long. It's very well specced as standard, has the refinement, decent performance, fuel economy, space and brand image (residuals) that you need.
BMW will be making a lot less profit on an entry spec car than Mazda will be making on the high spec 6, so you are also getting better value for money.
BMW will be making a lot less profit on an entry spec car than Mazda will be making on the high spec 6, so you are also getting better value for money.
The Mazda will be cheaper, slightly quicker, more toys and better fuel economy. I've not driven the Mazda but unless it's atrocious it will probably be very close. The Bmw does look good inside but it's not amazing. If all you've ever driven is small mainstream stuff you will be impressed, otherwise not. Try them both and let us know.
Rincewind209 said:
The Mazda will be cheaper, slightly quicker, more toys and better fuel economy. I've not driven the Mazda but unless it's atrocious it will probably be very close. The Bmw does look good inside but it's not amazing. If all you've ever driven is small mainstream stuff you will be impressed, otherwise not. Try them both and let us know.
The Mazda is not slightly quicker - it's slightly slower by virtue of it's 15bhp power deficit on the 520d (0-60 8.6 v 8.0 for the autos). The Mazda is also more thirsty by 5mpg on the combined cycle (We all know these figures are rubbish but what else can we go on) and the interior of the 5 Series is a noticeably nicer place to be than the Mazda 6.Your comments seem to be based on no real knowledge of either car - you simply make assumptions which may have been true 10 years ago but do not reflect the performance and specification of the current 5 Series. Both cars are very well specified, both have Nav, leather, xenons, dual zone climate, cruise etc - the only real differences in terms of spec appear to be that the Mazda has a reversing camera, adaptive lights and Bose audio.
Those three things, whilst nice to have, are simply insufficient to make it a better choice than the 5 Series. 10 years ago I'd have been on the other side of the fence and would not have picked a base model 5 Series over a top end something else but that was before the significant revisions to the level of standard equipment.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff