Focus ST BMW 120d?

[arfur sleep]

Currently driving an ’07 plate Focus ST 5dr which is a company car, bought 2yrs ago.

Love it.

Love the handling, love the steering, LOVE the power, love the noise, love the seats, love that it’s a 5dr hatchback when required etc etc

I'm falling out of love with the fuel economy and the benefit in kind tax bill as it’s now starting to hurt.

70 miles a day in car that does 25mpg at best is costing me over £4000 a year in fuel.
35% BIK tax stings a bit too.

I’m thinking about downsizing the commute vehicle to something dieselly to reduce the fuel spend and the BIK. (With added ManLogic TM I will then funnel these savings into an outright purchase of a suitable B road blaster, weekend toy.)

So I need a 5dr hatchback and ideally Focus size and possibly rear wheel drive (as I’ve never owned a rear wheel drive car). Again it’ll be a used and a company car but no restriction on badge etc.

I looked and the above requirements & thinking leads me to a BMW 1 series manual (120d – so 177bhp / 270lb torque and 50+ mpg). I think I can live with the looks but does anyone have any experience of them over long term? I know it’s a small downshift in size too but there’s usually only me in the car so that’s not huge concern.

Talk to me.

[StottyZr]

Theres at least 5 members on www.babybmw.net that have moved from an ST to a 123d for the same reasons you have stated. It depends what you want really, the 120d is a step back in terms of performance but the 123d is pretty closely matched with the ST.

The general consensus seems to be the BMW is a more "clunky" (gearchange etc) than the ST and doesn't feel as fast. Also the noise will be annoying moving from a lovely 5pot to a 4pot dag dag. Its definately less excited and nowhere near as fun, but if your doing a lot of miles then the 123d is a lovely compromise.

The 120d will generally see 50mpg, 123d 45mpg and the ST about 20-25 in the same circumstances I would be lead to believe.

[Schuey M]

I'd look at the honda civic type s as an alternative, remapped of course.

[Great Pretender]

Schuey M said:

I'd look at the honda civic type s as an alternative, remapped of course.

Got a real fright by one of these last week The smoke screen out the back made me assume it was fettled with, but even so...

[KaraK]

StottyZr said:

Theres at least 5 members on www.babybmw.net that have moved from an ST to a 123d for the same reasons you have stated. It depends what you want really, the 120d is a step back in terms of performance but the 123d is pretty closely matched with the ST.

The general consensus seems to be the BMW is a more "clunky" (gearchange etc) than the ST and doesn't feel as fast. Also the noise will be annoying moving from a lovely 5pot to a 4pot dag dag. Its definately less excited and nowhere near as fun, but if your doing a lot of miles then the 123d is a lovely compromise.

The 120d will generally see 50mpg, 123d 45mpg and the ST about 20-25 in the same circumstances I would be lead to believe.

Drove a 123d the other day and although it was necessecarily rocket-ship quick it had got plenty of go and was simply awash with torque. Putting my foot down in 6th and feeling it respond like it was in 3rd was certainly an eye-opener! Economy wise it certainly takes a hit vs the 120d but it will still be far cheaper to run than the ST.

[GSP]

People will say the 120d is not that economical, and sure I can get below 40mpg driving fairly hard all the time, but I also had 64mpg this week driving at 65mph up the motorway.

I find the handling better than anything else I have owned including a 106 rallye/gti which was supposed to be one of the more fun better handling cars about.

Performance and sound won't seem like much compared to the ST though. Although performance is actually not that bad from stock, better once it's had a fettle.

[StottyZr]

KaraK said:

StottyZr said:

Theres at least 5 members on www.babybmw.net that have moved from an ST to a 123d for the same reasons you have stated. It depends what you want really, the 120d is a step back in terms of performance but the 123d is pretty closely matched with the ST.

The general consensus seems to be the BMW is a more "clunky" (gearchange etc) than the ST and doesn't feel as fast. Also the noise will be annoying moving from a lovely 5pot to a 4pot dag dag. Its definately less excited and nowhere near as fun, but if your doing a lot of miles then the 123d is a lovely compromise.

The 120d will generally see 50mpg, 123d 45mpg and the ST about 20-25 in the same circumstances I would be lead to believe.

Drove a 123d the other day and although it was necessecarily rocket-ship quick it had got plenty of go and was simply awash with torque. Putting my foot down in 6th and feeling it respond like it was in 3rd was certainly an eye-opener! Economy wise it certainly takes a hit vs the 120d but it will still be far cheaper to run than the ST.

Oddly enough quite a few people who have driven both the 120d and 123d say the 120d feels faster! It seems the power delivery of the 123d makes the car feel quite a bit slower than it actually is. And to be honest, there isn't a huge difference in fuel economy. The 123d gets 55mpg on the test and 120d 60mpg, I think the difference is due to gearing (123d has a shorter final drive)

As a white good the 120d would most likely be the better choice. But as a petrolhead it has to be the 123d everytime

[arfur sleep]

StottyZr said:

Theres at least 5 members on www.babybmw.net that have moved from an ST to a 123d for the same reasons you have stated. It depends what you want really, the 120d is a step back in terms of performance but the 123d is pretty closely matched with the ST.

The general consensus seems to be the BMW is a more "clunky" (gearchange etc) than the ST and doesn't feel as fast. Also the noise will be annoying moving from a lovely 5pot to a 4pot dag dag. Its definately less excited and nowhere near as fun, but if your doing a lot of miles then the 123d is a lovely compromise.

The 120d will generally see 50mpg, 123d 45mpg and the ST about 20-25 in the same circumstances I would be lead to believe.

I want to stay in the ST and upgrade to a RS but that ain't going to happen

Money needs to be saved at the moment so going for a 120d should give me that whilst retaining some driving pleasure (okay,maybe not) and practicality. As mentioned, I'll be looking at a weekend toy in a few months anyway to sate my need for speed currently afforded by the ST.

123d bit heavier on the tax but I will investigate - sounds interesting.

[themanwithnoname]

GSP said:

People will say the 120d is not that economical, and sure I can get below 40mpg driving fairly hard all the time, but I also had 64mpg this week driving at 65mph up the motorway.

I find the handling better than anything else I have owned including a 106 rallye/gti which was supposed to be one of the more fun better handling cars about.

Performance and sound won't seem like much compared to the ST though. Although performance is actually not that bad from stock, better once it's had a fettle.

Just to echo this. I drive like my arse is on fire most of the time, lots of b road blasting etc. My 120d shows 41.6 as an average consumption, but regularly see 50+ on my dull motorway work trips. 280 miles on 1/2 a tank yesterday or 25litres of the black stuff. Or 51mpg, most of that at 70ish where ish is a variable of about 20.

Fun handling, not especially fast, but gets the job done. Going for a remap in September, should be closer to 200 sooty nags with torque increases to match. Will improve willingness I hope. Still 10k miles since March and not put a foot wrong. Happy with my purchase.

I came from a long line of tuned Saabs, and am still happy.

Oh, get the sport seats. The standard ones aren't very supportive.

[monthefish]

I run a 320d (same engine as a 120d perhaps?) and absolutely love it.

The economy (55-60mpg average) never stops putting a smile on my face, and it is quick enough for general driving (I have a toy for when I want to go fast).

If this is your only car however, and you are into your cars (you probably are, seeing as you are on PH), you would probably appreciate going for a bit more power, and perhaps the 123d would be a better choice for you

[KaraK]

StottyZr said:

KaraK said:

StottyZr said:

Theres at least 5 members on www.babybmw.net that have moved from an ST to a 123d for the same reasons you have stated. It depends what you want really, the 120d is a step back in terms of performance but the 123d is pretty closely matched with the ST.

The general consensus seems to be the BMW is a more "clunky" (gearchange etc) than the ST and doesn't feel as fast. Also the noise will be annoying moving from a lovely 5pot to a 4pot dag dag. Its definately less excited and nowhere near as fun, but if your doing a lot of miles then the 123d is a lovely compromise.

The 120d will generally see 50mpg, 123d 45mpg and the ST about 20-25 in the same circumstances I would be lead to believe.

Drove a 123d the other day and although it was necessecarily rocket-ship quick it had got plenty of go and was simply awash with torque. Putting my foot down in 6th and feeling it respond like it was in 3rd was certainly an eye-opener! Economy wise it certainly takes a hit vs the 120d but it will still be far cheaper to run than the ST.

Oddly enough quite a few people who have driven both the 120d and 123d say the 120d feels faster! It seems the power delivery of the 123d makes the car feel quite a bit slower than it actually is. And to be honest, there isn't a huge difference in fuel economy. The 123d gets 55mpg on the test and 120d 60mpg, I think the difference is due to gearing (123d has a shorter final drive)

As a white good the 120d would most likely be the better choice. But as a petrolhead it has to be the 123d everytime

I can see how people might say the 120d "feels" faster - the power delivery is much more like the "normal" turbo diesel with a fairly good shove low down in the rev range and petering out higher up whereas the 123d however seems to be all about the upper rev ranges.

[Derwins Revenge]

Frankly, having just moved from a mkVi Golf GTI to a 320d, my advice is do not even consider the 120d. I get not a single iota of pleasure from the BMW, when compared to the Golf, so I'd imagine it would be the same for you going from an ST to a 120d. Please, don't do it. The fuel savings won't make up for the sheer dullness and lack of spark in the engine (maybe the 120d isn't exactly the same as the 2.0l 4 pot in the 320d, but I'm betting it's just as awful).

Mine is a company car, I'm stuck with it for three years. I chose it over a Leon Cupra R, another GTI even a Merc C350, because of fuel effeciency (and BiK). I may have to change jobs.

It's now my mission to help misguided souls (like myself) who think that coming from a reasonably quick, fun car, to a mid-range diesel will be ok. It won't. Unless you didn't really enjoy driving in the first place and satnav is more important than suspension set-up and throttle response. You own an ST, so I doubt that's you.

Having said that, never driven the 123d, but hear good things, just don't get a 120d if you currently enjoy driving because if it's anything like the 320d, you won't enjoy driving anymore.

Disclaimer This is my experience coming from a GTI. To all intents and purposes, the 320d is a lovely car, just not if you come from a more driving focused petrol car.

[Schuey M]

Derwins Revenge said:

Frankly, having just moved from a mkVi Golf GTI to a 320d, my advice is do not even consider the 120d. I get not a single iota of pleasure from the BMW, when compared to the Golf, so I'd imagine it would be the same for you going from an ST to a 120d. Please, don't do it. The fuel savings won't make up for the sheer dullness and lack of spark in the engine (maybe the 120d isn't exactly the same as the 2.0l 4 pot in the 320d, but I'm betting it's just as awful).

Mine is a company car, I'm stuck with it for three years. I chose it over a Leon Cupra R, another GTI even a Merc C350, because of fuel effeciency (and BiK). I may have to change jobs.

It's now my mission to help misguided souls (like myself) who think that coming from a reasonably quick, fun car, to a mid-range diesel will be ok. It won't. Unless you didn't really enjoy driving in the first place and satnav is more important than suspension set-up and throttle response. You own an ST, so I doubt that's you.

Having said that, never driven the 123d, but hear good things, just don't get a 120d if you currently enjoy driving because if it's anything like the 320d, you won't enjoy driving anymore.

Disclaimer This is my experience coming from a GTI. To all intents and purposes, the 320d is a lovely car, just not if you come from a more driving focused petrol car.

^^^^ very good advice!

[StottyZr]

doogz said:

StottyZr said:

as a petrolhead it has to be the 123d everytime

Oi! Leave it in context Compared to the 120d!

[arfur sleep]

Derwins Revenge said:

Frankly, having just moved from a mkVi Golf GTI to a 320d, my advice is do not even consider the 120d. I get not a single iota of pleasure from the BMW, when compared to the Golf, so I'd imagine it would be the same for you going from an ST to a 120d. Please, don't do it. The fuel savings won't make up for the sheer dullness and lack of spark in the engine (maybe the 120d isn't exactly the same as the 2.0l 4 pot in the 320d, but I'm betting it's just as awful).

Mine is a company car, I'm stuck with it for three years. I chose it over a Leon Cupra R, another GTI even a Merc C350, because of fuel effeciency (and BiK). I may have to change jobs.

It's now my mission to help misguided souls (like myself) who think that coming from a reasonably quick, fun car, to a mid-range diesel will be ok. It won't. Unless you didn't really enjoy driving in the first place and satnav is more important than suspension set-up and throttle response. You own an ST, so I doubt that's you.

Having said that, never driven the 123d, but hear good things, just don't get a 120d if you currently enjoy driving because if it's anything like the 320d, you won't enjoy driving anymore.

Disclaimer This is my experience coming from a GTI. To all intents and purposes, the 320d is a lovely car, just not if you come from a more driving focused petrol car.

Thanks, appreciate the honesty. And the advice / comments from everyone else too.

I know its going to be a massive step back in terms handling, performance etc but it's a commute-obile and i've had two years of fun in the ST doing that commute especially after finding the back road route one morning due to a snafu on the m'way - it was like finding the lost treasure of the Sierra Madre! It's has made my trip to work fun and challenging every morning as I race (in my head - occasionally with Murray commentating) the other cars to the destination

But I'm staring a near £4k saving a year in the face by shifting motors. That's getting to be proper money and i'm having trouble justifying it even in my own head with applied Man Logic TM

As mentioned in my OP, plan is live with the drudge for a while and then get a 2 seater weekend blaster (S1 Elise or VX220 for example) which will occasionally be used for commuting.

So switching to a 123d might be best plan (although it'll reduce saving a bit) and at worst a 120d. My only requirement at the moment is that the new car has to have xenon lamps - the family wagon doesn't and frankly it's like driving on candles when compared to the ST.

Haven't got to change immediately but sometime soon...

this is perfect...but for it being 2 door, not 5 door

[irocfan]

silly questiontime - if it's just for being a white good rather than fun why not get a focus diesel which'll still leave you with funds for the toy?

[rumple]

themanwithnoname said:

Just to echo this. I drive like my arse is on fire most of the time, lots of b road blasting etc. My 120d shows 41.6 as an average consumption, but regularly see 50+ on my dull motorway work trips. 280 miles on 1/2 a tank yesterday or 25litres of the black stuff. Or 51mpg, most of that at 70ish where ish is a variable of about 20.

Fun handling, not especially fast, but gets the job done. Going for a remap in September, should be closer to 200 sooty nags with torque increases to match. Will improve willingness I hope. Still 10k miles since March and not put a foot wrong. Happy with my purchase.

I came from a long line of tuned Saabs, and am still happy.

Oh, get the sport seats. The standard ones aren't very supportive.

I think you've hit the nail on the head, in my 330ci I just can't afford to drive everywhere with my arse on fire, my next car will definitely be a derv

[mr_fibuli]

Not quite the same, but last week I traded in my ST220 for an E90 320d. Mainly because I was only using it for a motorway commute, and 26 mpg was getting silly. The 320 returns about 46 on the same journey, and reports about 52mpg with cruise set at 80.

So far I am loving the way it is put together, not one rattle on a 6 year old car. Performance is "adequate" at best. Most annoying is probably the narrow power band, which seems to be 2000-3000 rpm. It then gradually dies towards the limiter, just when you would be expecting a proper petrol engine to be taking off.

On the plus side though I did find it surprisingly good fun to hustle down a windy country lane, where the power delivery seemed to work quite well and the gears are close enough to keep it interesting. It actually reminded me a bit of my old 200SX - RWD and turbo charged

[urquattroGus]

An RS has noticeably better fuel consumption than an ST. Had both and got 22-23.5 avereage in the ST and 26.5-28 average in my MP350 RS.

The crazy bit is that the RS is my company car, so I can relate to the company car tax part!

[arfur sleep]

irocfan said:

silly questiontime - if it's just for being a white good rather than fun why not get a focus diesel which'll still leave you with funds for the toy?

Because I still want to have some fun on the road!