The government have won. Selling my diesel for a petrol.....
Discussion
gizlaroc said:
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.
I haven't owned both petrols and diesels but I did have a loaner E250 CDI for a few weeks in 2014. I couldn't get on with it all mainly due to the noise and the restricted power band. Plus it stank when I fired it up and I literally had to close the front door to the house if I didn't want to make it smell like a ferry port.Prior to that I did try an E280 CDI and that was much more like it - smooth at idle, gravelly-sounding under load, tons of low-down torque. Mated nicely to the 7 speed auto box.
But this is PH and MPG doesn't matter so I replaced my 5.0 V8 with a 5.5 in the end.
gizlaroc said:
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.
I always filled the tank on fill ups and the range always said between 600-650 miles, I'm guessing it probably did around 35mpg officially, I did like its range(although I never measured it other than what the obc said) and it was only used as a distance car.
Gandahar said:
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
Your fuel computer figures are much closer to the "calculated" figures than I have found with my wifes 2015 Prius, another Toyota, so I am surprised that after a remap the computer on your car has gained accuracy as well as economy, especially that petrol cars tend to have more accurate fuel computers due to the way they work.
That and your car seems to be bucking against the trend as there is only ONE diesel Yaris owner on fuelly getting similar mpg
http://www.fuelly.com/car/toyota/yaris?engineconfi...
havoc said:
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?!?
Why can we not include the ZF8 though it covers so many cars now it is almost unfair to exclude it considering how many car manufacturers now use versions of it. (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?!?
I have taken mine out for drives, even if it is a diesel barge. I think you need a mindset change though as with a decent alignment the 640 is fairly capable for a laugh in sport mode for everything. The steering is lacking in some feedback but I have come across worse (and I include the MK4 MX5 ND in that for very strange EPS).
Really there are two elements I mean how many would take out a 640i just for a drive? I suspect it is less than many think on here. The 640d covers a number of bases well from the mundane through to the I have a few hours f*ck it. But overall connection irrespective of engine is that the 6 series is a barge. Part of the fun though is taking a barge out for a drive when really it is a little out of what many consider the norm.
Just prior to selling my MX5 (with quite a few modifications) I preferred taking my 40d out. Because the speeds involved were a little more on the legal side. Even an MX5 with enough handling focused changes and tyre changes can become a little bit excessive in terms of speed limits. If anything the standard car was better as it was still under the limits. With the 40d the size restricts some of that, but I just find it fun (and I can still get places afterwards).
Some of us that do motorway miles or A roads and are generally in traffic then the "compromise" that some see in an auto box is worth it. Furthermore, I just don't see the level of difference in comparison with older auto gearboxes,
Edited by Ninja59 on Tuesday 30th January 12:35
captain_cynic said:
The Mx35i and 40i were made for power. The 3 series is getting an M340i with an uprated B58 this year.
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.
Later versions did get a slight power increase in the 640d to 313. The 640i did not. Additionally also all the sources I have ever seen the 40i and 40d were side by side at 5.2 seconds (different versions of the 6 series adjust this figure slightly because of weight etc. the slowest being the GC)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.
The 240i is a complete different class of car and significantly lighter to start with.
I often take my petrol 530 auto (zf8) out just for the hell of it. Now I know how to make the most of the auto it can be fun, even paired to a 7000 rpm redline engine.
The only thing I miss is being able to block change down from say 4 to 2 or some specific gear rather than tapping the stick down to the desired gear just for the box to decide it wants a different gear. Can any auto (DCT perhaps?) do that?
The only thing I miss is being able to block change down from say 4 to 2 or some specific gear rather than tapping the stick down to the desired gear just for the box to decide it wants a different gear. Can any auto (DCT perhaps?) do that?
captain_cynic said:
The Mx35i and 40i were made for power. The 3 series is getting an M340i with an uprated B58 this year.
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.
A very quick google suggests that the B58 engine runs around 15psi of boost?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.
Interesting figures but given the weight differences then it's hardly surprising
Ninja59 said:
I think you need a mindset change though
I need to change my mindset but you won't change yours* ?!? I give up. 
And this ISN't about the 640d, it's about the difference between petrol and diesel characteristics in general (pretty much overall), and which is more 'fun' / which is more flexible.
* Or actually read what I've posted.
havoc said:
I need to change my mindset but you won't change yours* ?!? I give up.
And this ISN't about the 640d, it's about the difference between petrol and diesel characteristics in general (pretty much overall), and which is more 'fun' / which is more flexible.
* Or actually read what I've posted.
I was actually referencing taking barges out for drives....not you personally.And this ISN't about the 640d, it's about the difference between petrol and diesel characteristics in general (pretty much overall), and which is more 'fun' / which is more flexible.
* Or actually read what I've posted.
bmwmike said:
I often take my petrol 530 auto (zf8) out just for the hell of it. Now I know how to make the most of the auto it can be fun, even paired to a 7000 rpm redline engine.
The only thing I miss is being able to block change down from say 4 to 2 or some specific gear rather than tapping the stick down to the desired gear just for the box to decide it wants a different gear. Can any auto (DCT perhaps?) do that?
Hold the left paddle (as opposed to just pulling it once) is should block change down all the way instead of using kickdown. The only thing I miss is being able to block change down from say 4 to 2 or some specific gear rather than tapping the stick down to the desired gear just for the box to decide it wants a different gear. Can any auto (DCT perhaps?) do that?
"The shift paddles on the steering wheel allow you to shift gears quickly while keeping both hands on the steering wheel.
Shift up: briefly pull right shift paddle.
Shift down: briefly pull left shift paddle.
With the respective transmission version, the lowest possible gear can be selected by pulling and holding the left shift paddle."
Hey all,
just interested to read the comments here from people trading in their diesels for petrols for environmental reasons.
A lot of the articles I've read have said pretty much the same thing. Diesels produce more NOx which is bad for human health and dangerous in cities where the levels are much higher, but they produce less CO2 overall in like for like vehicles. If anyone has read different, I'd be interested to hear.
Whilst I'm sure we'd all rather not be breathing in any pollution at all, I personally suspect the bigger picture in just a decade or so's time, will be the reverse again, that switching back to petrol had a far more detrimental effect to the global environment than the individual human health impact of higher NOx from diesel.
Much like the Prius story that apparently building a new Prius hybrid vehicle meant that the overall carbon footprint of owning one far outweighed the benefits of running it for a long time if not the whole life of the car; I would also hazard a guess that those of you who have switched a working diesel vehicle to a new petrol vehicle may have fallen into that same trap of having a new vehicle built that does more damage than keeping one running for longer if that was your reason for switching.
Ultimately, for those here that are genuinely concerned about their cars impact on the environment and not just wanting to avoid the economic cost of owning a diesel as they depreciate faster now this anti-diesel climate has been created and the government punishes their use in cities, my thoughts would be that you could buy the most efficient petrol car in the size you need, drive as efficiently as possible and get on a bicycle whenever possible. Just switching alone seems to be a really pointless exercise as far the environment is concerned.
These are just my two cents on what seem to be the realities of the situation anyway. I cycle a bit, use public transport and drive a V6 diesel... Definitely not saving the world my end.
just interested to read the comments here from people trading in their diesels for petrols for environmental reasons.
A lot of the articles I've read have said pretty much the same thing. Diesels produce more NOx which is bad for human health and dangerous in cities where the levels are much higher, but they produce less CO2 overall in like for like vehicles. If anyone has read different, I'd be interested to hear.
Whilst I'm sure we'd all rather not be breathing in any pollution at all, I personally suspect the bigger picture in just a decade or so's time, will be the reverse again, that switching back to petrol had a far more detrimental effect to the global environment than the individual human health impact of higher NOx from diesel.
Much like the Prius story that apparently building a new Prius hybrid vehicle meant that the overall carbon footprint of owning one far outweighed the benefits of running it for a long time if not the whole life of the car; I would also hazard a guess that those of you who have switched a working diesel vehicle to a new petrol vehicle may have fallen into that same trap of having a new vehicle built that does more damage than keeping one running for longer if that was your reason for switching.
Ultimately, for those here that are genuinely concerned about their cars impact on the environment and not just wanting to avoid the economic cost of owning a diesel as they depreciate faster now this anti-diesel climate has been created and the government punishes their use in cities, my thoughts would be that you could buy the most efficient petrol car in the size you need, drive as efficiently as possible and get on a bicycle whenever possible. Just switching alone seems to be a really pointless exercise as far the environment is concerned.
These are just my two cents on what seem to be the realities of the situation anyway. I cycle a bit, use public transport and drive a V6 diesel... Definitely not saving the world my end.
Alextodrive said:
Hey all,
just interested to read the comments here from people trading in their diesels for petrols for environmental reasons.
A lot of the articles I've read have said pretty much the same thing. Diesels produce more NOx which is bad for human health and dangerous in cities where the levels are much higher, but they produce less CO2 overall in like for like vehicles. If anyone has read different, I'd be interested to hear.
Whilst I'm sure we'd all rather not be breathing in any pollution at all, I personally suspect the bigger picture in just a decade or so's time, will be the reverse again, that switching back to petrol had a far more detrimental effect to the global environment than the individual human health impact of higher NOx from diesel.
Much like the Prius story that apparently building a new Prius hybrid vehicle meant that the overall carbon footprint of owning one far outweighed the benefits of running it for a long time if not the whole life of the car; I would also hazard a guess that those of you who have switched a working diesel vehicle to a new petrol vehicle may have fallen into that same trap of having a new vehicle built that does more damage than keeping one running for longer if that was your reason for switching.
Ultimately, for those here that are genuinely concerned about their cars impact on the environment and not just wanting to avoid the economic cost of owning a diesel as they depreciate faster now this anti-diesel climate has been created and the government punishes their use in cities, my thoughts would be that you could buy the most efficient petrol car in the size you need, drive as efficiently as possible and get on a bicycle whenever possible. Just switching alone seems to be a really pointless exercise as far the environment is concerned.
These are just my two cents on what seem to be the realities of the situation anyway. I cycle a bit, use public transport and drive a V6 diesel... Definitely not saving the world my end.
Focusing on NOx alone is not the full picture. Technically speaking as well when people reference "NOx" they really mean "NO2", which is the one that causes respiratory issues. just interested to read the comments here from people trading in their diesels for petrols for environmental reasons.
A lot of the articles I've read have said pretty much the same thing. Diesels produce more NOx which is bad for human health and dangerous in cities where the levels are much higher, but they produce less CO2 overall in like for like vehicles. If anyone has read different, I'd be interested to hear.
Whilst I'm sure we'd all rather not be breathing in any pollution at all, I personally suspect the bigger picture in just a decade or so's time, will be the reverse again, that switching back to petrol had a far more detrimental effect to the global environment than the individual human health impact of higher NOx from diesel.
Much like the Prius story that apparently building a new Prius hybrid vehicle meant that the overall carbon footprint of owning one far outweighed the benefits of running it for a long time if not the whole life of the car; I would also hazard a guess that those of you who have switched a working diesel vehicle to a new petrol vehicle may have fallen into that same trap of having a new vehicle built that does more damage than keeping one running for longer if that was your reason for switching.
Ultimately, for those here that are genuinely concerned about their cars impact on the environment and not just wanting to avoid the economic cost of owning a diesel as they depreciate faster now this anti-diesel climate has been created and the government punishes their use in cities, my thoughts would be that you could buy the most efficient petrol car in the size you need, drive as efficiently as possible and get on a bicycle whenever possible. Just switching alone seems to be a really pointless exercise as far the environment is concerned.
These are just my two cents on what seem to be the realities of the situation anyway. I cycle a bit, use public transport and drive a V6 diesel... Definitely not saving the world my end.
You also really need to look more into the research about particulates, which based on EU figures shows that is a much bigger problem. Added to that is the debate around direct injection petrols which produce particulates and many studies finding them causing equal problems to diesel pre DPF.
Alextodrive said:
Whilst I'm sure we'd all rather not be breathing in any pollution at all, I personally suspect the bigger picture in just a decade or so's time, will be the reverse again, that switching back to petrol had a far more detrimental effect to the global environment than the individual human health impact of higher NOx from diesel.
The reality is that China is building so many coal-fired power stations that ANY change to UK emissions is dwarfed by the continual increase in Chinese emissions....and that the proportion of UK CO2 emissions caused by passenger vehicles is in either high-single figure % or low-teens %, depending on where you get your stats from. So e.g. a (maximum) 20% increase in CO2 caused by every driver switching from diesel to petrol = +/- 2% increase in UK emissions. But as <50% of cars are diesels, we're talking <1% increase in UK emissions.
In other words - you're far better off spending your energy lobbying the government to stop courting China, or maybe just stop buying stuff made in China!
(Not sure on the current position, but in either 2014 or 2015, China was building new power stations at a rate equal to adding the TOTAL UK emissions (not cars - ALL emissions) every 90 days. Anything we do in this country is effectively pissing in the ocean until we can influence China and the USA to take it seriously.)
gizlaroc said:
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.
But car for car, aside from sounding nicer and needlessly revving higher, there is nothing the 640i does that the 640d doesn't do better, measurably.
gizlaroc said:
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'.
Pica-Pica said:
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.
Prinny said:
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.
If the 640i had been even as good as the 640d, I'd have bought that instead.
captain_cynic said:
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.
And I should think you have overtaken a 330d in your 240i. I've overtaken plenty of Toyota Prius's in any car I've owned.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff