The government have won. Selling my diesel for a petrol.....
Discussion
gizlaroc said:
xjay1337 said:
Fair point.
What else would you buy a 6 series for though?
If I was spending the money on a 6 series I would want the refinement and rev range of the petrol so I could have fun in it when wanted. What else would you buy a 6 series for though?
If I was trying to save money I would buy something else.
Ares said:
What you mean to say was you preferred it/disliked the diesel.
But as a car, the 640d is the better car. Faster, more frugal (10mpg better, 15mpg on a run), suits the gearbox better.
My point was, you can't say one is better. But as a car, the 640d is the better car. Faster, more frugal (10mpg better, 15mpg on a run), suits the gearbox better.
My list of requirements when looking for a car....
Refined.
Rev range.
Noise when you press on.
Linear power through the whole rev range.
If my list of requirements was....
More frugal.
Loads of shove from torque.
I would agree the 640d is 'better'.
Also, I don't agree it is quicker, I agree it is quicker off the mark and to get the petrol to be as quick you have to work it, but not quicker.
I also don't agree there is 10-15mpg advantage either.
I hear this all the time, I buy the diesel and then find the reality is more like 10-20% difference and end up disappointed.
Ares said:
It just, for some, uses the wrong fuel. That is why it will never be classed, by some, as a better car.
...oh, and I had my 640d 'remapped' too....stonkingly-er fast-er
I thought after remap the 640d was around 360hp vs 395hp on the 640i? ...oh, and I had my 640d 'remapped' too....stonkingly-er fast-er
I got 380hp out of my 335i when using 98ron. My 535d and 335d got 344hp and 340hp.
Some people look for different things from a car, hence why I am saying there is no 'better'.
Ares said:
Pica-Pica said:
sgtbash said:
Ninja59 said:
Bit unfair the 3.0 diesel 335D is an older generation design M57 v a newer 335i N54 series engine...
Exactly. The newer 335d's have loads more power.To compare the engines based on PWR at set revs would be as meaningless a comparative measure as forcing a petrol car driver to change gear at 4,000rpm, and seeing if he could match the same car but with a diesel lump.
cerb4.5lee said:
In fairness to the 6 series it's big and heavy(1800kg) and has lifeless steering, whether it's a 640d or 640i it's never going to be much fun for me. It's a laid back comfortable cruiser/GT that's built to pound motorways in relative comfort.
Yeah, I agree. But, it is a cart that will cost someone doing 15k miles a year around £700 a month to run new if they have got a deal, when you consider depreciation, fuel, servicing, tyres, insurance etc.
If spending that sort of money are you worried about saving £8-10 a week at the pumps?
I would argue someone who can spend £700 a month on a car for slopping up and down the M1 probably isn't bothered about saving that sort of money?
If the spec sheet said.....
15k miles pa = £210 640d and £180 640i I think many would probably consider the petrol version a bit more.
Don't get me wrong, I like saving money on fuel, but for that I tend to buy a BMW 20d and enjoy saving properly.
gizlaroc said:
cerb4.5lee said:
In fairness to the 6 series it's big and heavy(1800kg) and has lifeless steering, whether it's a 640d or 640i it's never going to be much fun for me. It's a laid back comfortable cruiser/GT that's built to pound motorways in relative comfort.
Yeah, I agree. But, it is a cart that will cost someone doing 15k miles a year around £700 a month to run new if they have got a deal, when you consider depreciation, fuel, servicing, tyres, insurance etc.
If spending that sort of money are you worried about saving £8-10 a week at the pumps?
I would argue someone who can spend £700 a month on a car for slopping up and down the M1 probably isn't bothered about saving that sort of money?
If the spec sheet said.....
15k miles pa = £210 640d and £180 640i I think many would probably consider the petrol version a bit more.
Don't get me wrong, I like saving money on fuel, but for that I tend to buy a BMW 20d and enjoy saving properly.
Pica-Pica said:
In all that you ignore the prime benefit of a 6 pot diesel, torque and tank range compared to petrol. That to me makes for a relaxed long distant drive.
The 640i really doesn't feel lacking in torque. Sure it doesn't have the low down grunt of the 640d, but the 640i does have the power on tap from just over 1100rpm instead of 1500rpm and when overtaking it revs round further.
Range? I used to get around 560 miles from my E350cdi, I get around 500 miles from the E350.
On a long run in France I used to get 650 miles vs 580 miles.
So yeah, they is a difference in range, but the way people speak on here you would think it is 700 miles vs 400 miles, which simply isn't the case.
I should just add, I can understand why someone may chose the 640d over the 640i, I'm not saying there is a right or wrong, just that I think many don't even consider the petrol, certainly not in the UK.
Edited by gizlaroc on Monday 29th January 20:31
Ares said:
What figures? 0-60? Pointless.
You may well be right, the 35i/40i was never designed to be high performance, otherwise it would maybe have been quicker...but in every day driving, the 640d is quicker, partly as it's fit with the gearbox is better, partly because whilst it has the same BHP, it has getting close to 50% more torque and a more usable power curve.
Bear in mind, with modern twin turbo diesels, there isn't a 306 dTurbo like shove anymore like there was.
Way to miss the point.You may well be right, the 35i/40i was never designed to be high performance, otherwise it would maybe have been quicker...but in every day driving, the 640d is quicker, partly as it's fit with the gearbox is better, partly because whilst it has the same BHP, it has getting close to 50% more torque and a more usable power curve.
Bear in mind, with modern twin turbo diesels, there isn't a 306 dTurbo like shove anymore like there was.
The 306 analogy was to demonstrate how a driver used to na engines thought the diesels were quick. I know I certainly felt that way back in the 90’s when trying them.
As the ex-owner of a 335d and a z4 with the n54 engine, I’m not just making this up from the comfort of my mum’s back bedroom, I’ve 4 years and 2 years of owning the engines in question (or at least a very close relative).
Anyway. Facts and figures from zeperfs (a good aggregator of all the testing data).
I chose gran-coupé as I seem to remember you had one.
http://www.zeperfs.com/en/duel4449-4345.htm
Please, I have no problem with opinions, but qualify them as such. When you talk about ‘everyday’ driving, I assume you mean circa. 15% throttle openings, and under those scenarios, you have a point, the innate turbo-diesel characteristics mean that the area available under the curve tends to be greater than that of a petrol, which is why I agreed with you that the 640d is probably better day-to-day in my first post!
However, you’ll notice my post said ‘absolute’ performance figures, and there’s nothing in it between the two (if a manual version existed, I’d expect bigger variances through tester inconsistencies) as per the link.
Ares said:
KevinCamaroSS said:
Ares said:
No, that would be pointless. Petrol engines need revs. Diesel engines do not. Some 'ultimate driving gods' may feel the need to rev beyond 7/8,000 rpm to get the full driving experience, but it makes no difference to real world pace, ceteris paribus.
To compare the engines based on PWR at set revs would be as meaningless a comparative measure as forcing a petrol car driver to change gear at 4,000rpm, and seeing if he could match the same car but with a diesel lump.
I think you must have missed the bit about % of max rpm, not at set revs. So a diesel at 2500rpm compared with the petrol at 3750 rpm.To compare the engines based on PWR at set revs would be as meaningless a comparative measure as forcing a petrol car driver to change gear at 4,000rpm, and seeing if he could match the same car but with a diesel lump.
But a lot of us like progressive power delivery, not the "all in a rush at once followed by acres of disappointment" that a diesel engine gives.
For M-way munching the engine really doesn't matter at all - anything with >150bhp/tonne is going to be quick enough anywhere in the rev-range for that sort of work, so I agree you may as well go for economy. But then anything more than a 2.0D is probably overkill if that's your requirement - you're then engaging in man-maths and self-justification as much as any petrol owner.
For a sports / performance car (of any kind, not just the lightweight Elise-a-like) a progressive, rev-happy delivery has got to be preferable for a number of reasons:-
- Ease of metering-out power delivery
- ...and from this, greater precision in your driving, requiring less (no?) intervention from driver aids
- Flexibility - you may not want to be changing gear mid-overtake, or mid-corner - a broader power-band gives you more options
- Sound - (almost) ANY engine revving-out sounds better than one which is done and dusted by 4,000rpm, and certainly so in the performance envelope.
- Character - that ineffable 'something' that all the above endows an engine with. Think about the truly great performance car engines, and how many of them redline at 5k rpm?!?
If you can only own one car and it has to do a number of jobs, then I agree there's got to be compromise somewhere, but please don't suggest that if your compromise is a diesel engine then that engine is 'better' from a performance perspective than a petrol, because it's been proven above by me and others that is emphatically not the case. Yes there are 'good' diesels out there, but the equivalent petrol is better in all regards bar two:-
- economy;
- initial 'kick in the back' (aka 'Jerk', and scientifically the rate-of-change (differential) of acceleration, which as above is what we perceive most).
havoc said:
Agreed.
But a lot of us like progressive power delivery, not the "all in a rush at once followed by acres of disappointment" that a diesel engine gives.
For M-way munching the engine really doesn't matter at all - anything with >150bhp/tonne is going to be quick enough anywhere in the rev-range for that sort of work, so I agree you may as well go for economy. But then anything more than a 2.0D is probably overkill if that's your requirement - you're then engaging in man-maths and self-justification as much as any petrol owner.
For a sports / performance car (of any kind, not just the lightweight Elise-a-like) a progressive, rev-happy delivery has got to be preferable for a number of reasons:-
- Ease of metering-out power delivery
- ...and from this, greater precision in your driving, requiring less (no?) intervention from driver aids
- Flexibility - you may not want to be changing gear mid-overtake, or mid-corner - a broader power-band gives you more options
- Sound - (almost) ANY engine revving-out sounds better than one which is done and dusted by 4,000rpm, and certainly so in the performance envelope.
- Character - that ineffable 'something' that all the above endows an engine with. Think about the truly great performance car engines, and how many of them redline at 5k rpm?!?
If you can only own one car and it has to do a number of jobs, then I agree there's got to be compromise somewhere, but please don't suggest that if your compromise is a diesel engine then that engine is 'better' from a performance perspective than a petrol, because it's been proven above by me and others that is emphatically not the case. Yes there are 'good' diesels out there, but the equivalent petrol is better in all regards bar two:-
- economy;
- initial 'kick in the back' (aka 'Jerk', and scientifically the rate-of-change (differential) of acceleration, which as above is what we perceive most).
Not really acres of disappointment, endlessly relentless yes as the pairing with the ZF8 in the 40D is that good. Whether the combination works the same in a 40i I would not know (they are like hens teeth). But a lot of us like progressive power delivery, not the "all in a rush at once followed by acres of disappointment" that a diesel engine gives.
For M-way munching the engine really doesn't matter at all - anything with >150bhp/tonne is going to be quick enough anywhere in the rev-range for that sort of work, so I agree you may as well go for economy. But then anything more than a 2.0D is probably overkill if that's your requirement - you're then engaging in man-maths and self-justification as much as any petrol owner.
For a sports / performance car (of any kind, not just the lightweight Elise-a-like) a progressive, rev-happy delivery has got to be preferable for a number of reasons:-
- Ease of metering-out power delivery
- ...and from this, greater precision in your driving, requiring less (no?) intervention from driver aids
- Flexibility - you may not want to be changing gear mid-overtake, or mid-corner - a broader power-band gives you more options
- Sound - (almost) ANY engine revving-out sounds better than one which is done and dusted by 4,000rpm, and certainly so in the performance envelope.
- Character - that ineffable 'something' that all the above endows an engine with. Think about the truly great performance car engines, and how many of them redline at 5k rpm?!?
If you can only own one car and it has to do a number of jobs, then I agree there's got to be compromise somewhere, but please don't suggest that if your compromise is a diesel engine then that engine is 'better' from a performance perspective than a petrol, because it's been proven above by me and others that is emphatically not the case. Yes there are 'good' diesels out there, but the equivalent petrol is better in all regards bar two:-
- economy;
- initial 'kick in the back' (aka 'Jerk', and scientifically the rate-of-change (differential) of acceleration, which as above is what we perceive most).
Regarding motorway munching, whilst childish to some degree being able to pull away from very small speeds riding on significant amounts of torque or equally from behind two elephants racing then there is significant difference.
- Ease of metering-out power delivery - some of this down to the gearbox more than anything and throttle calibration, in no way would I consider the 40D difficult to "metre out".
- ...and from this, greater precision in your driving, requiring less (no?) intervention from driver aids - rarely does my TC have to actually intervene (about 3 times since ownership began) that is more down to the drivers arse, steering angles and generally being sensible when driving.
- Flexibility - you may not want to be changing gear mid-overtake, or mid-corner - a broader power-band gives you more options - really? The torque of the 40D usually means you are well past, and you would have to wind the petrol up anyway. Also the mid corner aspect is defined largely by the gearbox (which in many cases now for the ZF8 at least is linked to GPS to exactly avoid those situations), furthermore it will downshift all on its own prior to things like roundabouts to ensure it is slowing nicely and providing enough power
- Sound - (almost) ANY engine revving-out sounds better than one which is done and dusted by 4,000rpm, and certainly so in the performance envelope. - BMW's in all regard now have sound enhancement so a not really a great point, the days of things like the S85 are long gone (I would go as far as saying the S55 don't sound all that great).
- Character - that ineffable 'something' that all the above endows an engine with. Think about the truly great performance car engines, and how many of them redline at 5k rpm?!? - How often do many of us get it take a car out that high? Reality is if you live like around me there is far too many vehicles on the road.
My diesel Yaris
One tank, 602 miles, 73.3 mpg ( just over 70 real ) and still two blobs to go so at least another 70 miles.
I'd like to see an electric car do that range, or a petrol car do that mpg over such a long distance.
And it has a superchips conversion ( 88 -> 112 smokey donkeys) and has done over 150 laps of the Brands Hatch Indy circuit (without bothering the lap record it has to be said).
Feck the government. They now have introduced some new way to victimise my Yaris
http://www.evo.co.uk/news/20678/mot-test-changes-t...
"This is reflected in the draft MOT inspection manual which explains that if the, ‘exhaust on a vehicle fitted with a diesel particulate filter emits visible smoke of any colour’ a Major fault should be recorded, hence the car will fail the MOT. "
Ok, so my Yaris likes to smoke a little bit, especially on full throttle, what elderly gent does not? When we go to a pub for lunch we leave him outside with the rest of the smokers, I just don't see the problem ...
One tank, 602 miles, 73.3 mpg ( just over 70 real ) and still two blobs to go so at least another 70 miles.
I'd like to see an electric car do that range, or a petrol car do that mpg over such a long distance.
And it has a superchips conversion ( 88 -> 112 smokey donkeys) and has done over 150 laps of the Brands Hatch Indy circuit (without bothering the lap record it has to be said).
Feck the government. They now have introduced some new way to victimise my Yaris
http://www.evo.co.uk/news/20678/mot-test-changes-t...
"This is reflected in the draft MOT inspection manual which explains that if the, ‘exhaust on a vehicle fitted with a diesel particulate filter emits visible smoke of any colour’ a Major fault should be recorded, hence the car will fail the MOT. "
Ok, so my Yaris likes to smoke a little bit, especially on full throttle, what elderly gent does not? When we go to a pub for lunch we leave him outside with the rest of the smokers, I just don't see the problem ...
Edited by Gandahar on Tuesday 30th January 08:52
Gandahar said:
My diesel Yaris
One tank, 602 miles, 73.3 mpg ( just over 70 real ) and still two blobs to go so at least another 70 miles.
I'd like to see an electric car do that range, or a petrol car do that mpg over such a long distance.
And it has a superchips conversion ( 88 -> 112 smokey donkeys) and has done over 150 laps of the Brands Hatch Indy circuit (without bothering the lap record it has to be said).
Feck the government. They now have introduced some new way to victimise my Yaris
http://www.evo.co.uk/news/20678/mot-test-changes-t...
"This is reflected in the draft MOT inspection manual which explains that if the, ‘exhaust on a vehicle fitted with a diesel particulate filter emits visible smoke of any colour’ a Major fault should be recorded, hence the car will fail the MOT. "
Ok, so my Yaris likes to smoke a little bit, especially on full throttle, what elderly gent does not? When we go to a pub for lunch we leave him outside with the rest of the smokers, I just don't see the problem ...
If its been remapped it wont be doing as many mpg as the computer suggests you will have altered the fuel map but not told the mpg computer One tank, 602 miles, 73.3 mpg ( just over 70 real ) and still two blobs to go so at least another 70 miles.
I'd like to see an electric car do that range, or a petrol car do that mpg over such a long distance.
And it has a superchips conversion ( 88 -> 112 smokey donkeys) and has done over 150 laps of the Brands Hatch Indy circuit (without bothering the lap record it has to be said).
Feck the government. They now have introduced some new way to victimise my Yaris
http://www.evo.co.uk/news/20678/mot-test-changes-t...
"This is reflected in the draft MOT inspection manual which explains that if the, ‘exhaust on a vehicle fitted with a diesel particulate filter emits visible smoke of any colour’ a Major fault should be recorded, hence the car will fail the MOT. "
Ok, so my Yaris likes to smoke a little bit, especially on full throttle, what elderly gent does not? When we go to a pub for lunch we leave him outside with the rest of the smokers, I just don't see the problem ...
Edited by Gandahar on Tuesday 30th January 08:52
gizlaroc said:
cerb4.5lee said:
In fairness to the 6 series it's big and heavy(1800kg) and has lifeless steering, whether it's a 640d or 640i it's never going to be much fun for me. It's a laid back comfortable cruiser/GT that's built to pound motorways in relative comfort.
Yeah, I agree. But, it is a cart that will cost someone doing 15k miles a year around £700 a month to run new if they have got a deal, when you consider depreciation, fuel, servicing, tyres, insurance etc.
If spending that sort of money are you worried about saving £8-10 a week at the pumps?
I would argue someone who can spend £700 a month on a car for slopping up and down the M1 probably isn't bothered about saving that sort of money?
If the spec sheet said.....
15k miles pa = £210 640d and £180 640i I think many would probably consider the petrol version a bit more.
Don't get me wrong, I like saving money on fuel, but for that I tend to buy a BMW 20d and enjoy saving properly.
For the 5 series with its extra bulk I feel it's better having the 30d engine working less hard, rather than the 20d engine working its pips off using more fuel.
liner33 said:
Gandahar said:
My diesel Yaris
One tank, 602 miles, 73.3 mpg ( just over 70 real ) and still two blobs to go so at least another 70 miles.
I'd like to see an electric car do that range, or a petrol car do that mpg over such a long distance.
And it has a superchips conversion ( 88 -> 112 smokey donkeys) and has done over 150 laps of the Brands Hatch Indy circuit (without bothering the lap record it has to be said).
Feck the government. They now have introduced some new way to victimise my Yaris
http://www.evo.co.uk/news/20678/mot-test-changes-t...
"This is reflected in the draft MOT inspection manual which explains that if the, ‘exhaust on a vehicle fitted with a diesel particulate filter emits visible smoke of any colour’ a Major fault should be recorded, hence the car will fail the MOT. "
Ok, so my Yaris likes to smoke a little bit, especially on full throttle, what elderly gent does not? When we go to a pub for lunch we leave him outside with the rest of the smokers, I just don't see the problem ...
If its been remapped it wont be doing as many mpg as the computer suggests you will have altered the fuel map but not told the mpg computer One tank, 602 miles, 73.3 mpg ( just over 70 real ) and still two blobs to go so at least another 70 miles.
I'd like to see an electric car do that range, or a petrol car do that mpg over such a long distance.
And it has a superchips conversion ( 88 -> 112 smokey donkeys) and has done over 150 laps of the Brands Hatch Indy circuit (without bothering the lap record it has to be said).
Feck the government. They now have introduced some new way to victimise my Yaris
http://www.evo.co.uk/news/20678/mot-test-changes-t...
"This is reflected in the draft MOT inspection manual which explains that if the, ‘exhaust on a vehicle fitted with a diesel particulate filter emits visible smoke of any colour’ a Major fault should be recorded, hence the car will fail the MOT. "
Ok, so my Yaris likes to smoke a little bit, especially on full throttle, what elderly gent does not? When we go to a pub for lunch we leave him outside with the rest of the smokers, I just don't see the problem ...
Edited by Gandahar on Tuesday 30th January 08:52
you spent 5x as long writing that as you could have spent reading "just over 70 real"
I love this about PH, people just have to be English and see the downside of everything, even if they have to talk b
ks to make it so. The downside is having to drive a Yaris!
Edited by Gandahar on Tuesday 30th January 09:37
Ninja59 said:
Not really acres of disappointment, endlessly relentless yes as the pairing with the ZF8 in the 40D is that good. Whether the combination works the same in a 40i I would not know (they are like hens teeth).
Regarding motorway munching, whilst childish to some degree being able to pull away from very small speeds riding on significant amounts of torque or equally from behind two elephants racing then there is significant difference.
- Ease of metering-out power delivery - some of this down to the gearbox more than anything and throttle calibration, in no way would I consider the 40D difficult to "metre out".
- ...and from this, greater precision in your driving, requiring less (no?) intervention from driver aids - rarely does my TC have to actually intervene (about 3 times since ownership began) that is more down to the drivers arse, steering angles and generally being sensible when driving.
- Flexibility - you may not want to be changing gear mid-overtake, or mid-corner - a broader power-band gives you more options - really? The torque of the 40D usually means you are well past, and you would have to wind the petrol up anyway. Also the mid corner aspect is defined largely by the gearbox (which in many cases now for the ZF8 at least is linked to GPS to exactly avoid those situations), furthermore it will downshift all on its own prior to things like roundabouts to ensure it is slowing nicely and providing enough power
- Sound - (almost) ANY engine revving-out sounds better than one which is done and dusted by 4,000rpm, and certainly so in the performance envelope. - BMW's in all regard now have sound enhancement so a not really a great point, the days of things like the S85 are long gone (I would go as far as saying the S55 don't sound all that great).
- Character - that ineffable 'something' that all the above endows an engine with. Think about the truly great performance car engines, and how many of them redline at 5k rpm?!? - How often do many of us get it take a car out that high? Reality is if you live like around me there is far too many vehicles on the road.
The bit highlighted above is exactly what I'm trying to say.Regarding motorway munching, whilst childish to some degree being able to pull away from very small speeds riding on significant amounts of torque or equally from behind two elephants racing then there is significant difference.
- Ease of metering-out power delivery - some of this down to the gearbox more than anything and throttle calibration, in no way would I consider the 40D difficult to "metre out".
- ...and from this, greater precision in your driving, requiring less (no?) intervention from driver aids - rarely does my TC have to actually intervene (about 3 times since ownership began) that is more down to the drivers arse, steering angles and generally being sensible when driving.
- Flexibility - you may not want to be changing gear mid-overtake, or mid-corner - a broader power-band gives you more options - really? The torque of the 40D usually means you are well past, and you would have to wind the petrol up anyway. Also the mid corner aspect is defined largely by the gearbox (which in many cases now for the ZF8 at least is linked to GPS to exactly avoid those situations), furthermore it will downshift all on its own prior to things like roundabouts to ensure it is slowing nicely and providing enough power
- Sound - (almost) ANY engine revving-out sounds better than one which is done and dusted by 4,000rpm, and certainly so in the performance envelope. - BMW's in all regard now have sound enhancement so a not really a great point, the days of things like the S85 are long gone (I would go as far as saying the S55 don't sound all that great).
- Character - that ineffable 'something' that all the above endows an engine with. Think about the truly great performance car engines, and how many of them redline at 5k rpm?!? - How often do many of us get it take a car out that high? Reality is if you live like around me there is far too many vehicles on the road.
Yeah the big derv is good, it is very good, but I don't know anyone that has owned both and not said the petrol was better.
You get all the positives and more.
cerb4.5lee said:
You do make very good points, I also think the 20d route is the way to go for frugality in the 1 and 3 series. Where the 20d engine doesn't make as much sense is in the 5 series though, and when I ran my E61 520d and E90 330d together for a while they both returned the same mpg.
For the 5 series with its extra bulk I feel it's better having the 30d engine working less hard, rather than the 20d engine working its pips off using more fuel.
Hence why if going up to the 6 series you are not exactly getting an MPG monster, I used to see 70mpg from Fiona's E91 320d Touring, it would often average 60mpg over the whole tank. For the 5 series with its extra bulk I feel it's better having the 30d engine working less hard, rather than the 20d engine working its pips off using more fuel.
F11 520d was 40mpg at best over a whole tank, computer reading 45mpg.
Jump up to the 530d and you drop 2-3mpg, well worth it, go to the 535d and you drop another 3mpg, but for some worth it. The reality is though that you are now down to computer saying 38mpg average and in reality 34mpg.
At that point the whole reason for going diesel, for many, is in question.
The 640d has a 70L fuel tank, reserve light comes on with 8 litres remaining, so most get 62 litres of fuel in it. So approximately 13.5 gallons. Both the guys I know who ran them said they used to get roughly 480-490 miles between fill ups from a £75 fill up. That is 36mpg, even though their computer says 42mpg.
One went to a 640i GC, he is down to 32mpg, he is getting 430 miles from a fill up.
It is bugger all when you work it into £ per week.
Now I am sure there will be people getting 26mpg from the 640i too, but they would probably be getting 32mpg from the 640d.
I think the problem with a lot of figures on diesel vs petrol is many diesel owners do the miles, where as when you buy a 350hp petrol you probably use it in a very different way, which skews the figures.
I used to do it myself, M3 for hooning around in and Audi 2.0tdi for doing the miles in. 18mpg vs 40mpg.
However, suddenly start using the M3 for going and back and forth to London and you would see 30mpg average, while the little Audi was sat at home doing the school run and nipping to the shops its MPG suddenly dropped down to 34mpg. Suddenly that gap is not so big.
I guess what I am trying to say is we often simply don't compare like with like, in both how we use cars and often with memories of old tech, for many their last petrol was a lethargic NA 1.8 litre petrol, or they have never tried a BMW or Mercedes 6cyl diesel and only diesel experience is some nasty 4 cyl designed in 1985.
Diesel and Petrol are actually feeling very, very similar to drive these days with them all going forced induction and in many cases auto too which is tightening the gap even further. The way people speak on hear just seems to me some are not comparing apples with apples.
Ninja59 said:
- Character - that ineffable 'something' that all the above endows an engine with. Think about the truly great performance car engines, and how many of them redline at 5k rpm?!? - How often do many of us get it take a car out that high? Reality is if you live like around me there is far too many vehicles on the road.
Erm, not everyone lives in the SE. It's been said many times before, and ignored by those unfortunate enough to do so.(I grew up in Kent, BTW, and started work there)
I currently commute 33 miles each way - at this time of year most of it is on A-roads / DCs and then town roads, so it's usually a roundabout exit or an overtake where I can stretch the car. But once the clocks go forward I can take the back-roads home. And that is >10 miles of quiet country roads.
And that's just my commute. And then there's the weekends...can't imagine ever going out for a "for the hell of it" drive in a diesel automatic...
Ref. your specific example (640d vs 640i):-
- you and Ares and all the others are missing the caveat from my original argument relating to modern auto-boxes attached to bigger-capacity diesels, which is a very effective pairing. Never denied that.
- you're picking one specific exception to try and decry an entire argument.
...and I keep going back to the "automatics are effective but not as much FUN as a manual, nor as engaging" comment that's been made on this thread at least 7 or 8 times (and ignored each time). I don't get why, on a petrolhead forum, people are championing automatic boxes?!?
Ares said:
What figures? 0-60? Pointless.
You may well be right, the 35i/40i was never designed to be high performance, otherwise it would maybe have been quicker...but in every day driving, the 640d is quicker, partly as it's fit with the gearbox is better, partly because whilst it has the same BHP, it has getting close to 50% more torque and a more usable power curve.
Bear in mind, with modern twin turbo diesels, there isn't a 306 dTurbo like shove anymore like there was.
The Mx35i and 40i were made for power. The 3 series is getting an M340i with an uprated B58 this year. You may well be right, the 35i/40i was never designed to be high performance, otherwise it would maybe have been quicker...but in every day driving, the 640d is quicker, partly as it's fit with the gearbox is better, partly because whilst it has the same BHP, it has getting close to 50% more torque and a more usable power curve.
Bear in mind, with modern twin turbo diesels, there isn't a 306 dTurbo like shove anymore like there was.
Some figures.
640d - 308 HP - 5.5s 0-100
640i - 320 HP - 5.3s 0-100
M240i - 335 HP - 4.5s 0-100
Out of the three, the diesel is the slowest. The ironic thing about the M240i is that it runs a very low stock boost pressure (6-8 PSI), so if you want to start talking about tuning, you're still going to run out of steam a lot earlier.
I've never ridden in a diesel that can deliver as much power, as smoothly as a petrol. This is because diesels are not designed for it and no matter how many turbo's you put on or how much you tune it, it will never be as fast as a petrol in the same state.
Yes, I've overtaken many a 330d in my M240i including ones I know have been tuned... and the M240i isn't even the fastest 2 series petrol.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff