1 series Advice

[telecat]

My Wife's taken a fancy to the 1-series so we are going to have a look at them soon. I undersand that the 118i petrol engine changed recently. What's the difference between the old and new units? I can't find details of the old 118 engine but the new one seems to have so much better economy and performance than the 116i that I feel it could be worthwhile getting the newer 118. Any ideas on when it slooted into the 118 as well?

[Mustard]

buy the diesel!

Drives sooo much better and miles more economical

[telecat]

Don't buy diesels, too much soot!

[Mustard]

telecat said:

Don't buy diesels, too much soot!

Maybe 10yrs ago!

BMW 4 cylinder Petrol is corse and gutless and has to have the knackers thraped off it to get anywhere

Had 318i's for a week and been glad to get back in my 'D'

.... and the engine is made in the UK

Edited by Mustard on Monday 6th August 16:39

[anonymous-user]

I prefer the diesel too, but it's only more economical overall for high mileage drivers. Diesels are more expensive to buy in the first place, so you have to cover a lot of distance before it makes financial sense.

I think the engines were updated mid 2007 along with the subtle facelift, so if you're thinking of a used car it will be the old version.

[CatherineJ]

I had a 318i late last year and it was gutless.

The new 118i has more power than that car but even so I suspect it won't be enough.

I would go for the diesel. I have a 120d which is great and oddly in 4k miles it has not needed any oil.

The new 118d is also only £35 a year in terms of road tax.

Edited by CatherineJ on Tuesday 7th August 22:04

[Methane Bloke]

telecat said:

Don't buy diesels, too much soot!

You must be thinking of Mercs!

BMW diesels produce little smoke (none with the DPF) only torque and power and sip fuel.

Our 335d averaged 38MPG on a 200 mile trip this weekend and the 120d has returned over 47MPG on its last two tanks, that's 900 miles.

May cost more to buy, but more desireable when selling as well.

Regards

Chris

[Andrew D]

Methane Bloke said:

BMW diesels produce little smoke (none with the DPF) only torque and power and sip fuel.

... and also produce the diesel death-rattle rather than a pleasing exhaust note.

Methane Bloke said:

May cost more to buy, but more desireable when selling as well.

But by that token the petrol motors will be cheaper to buy in the first place, if you're looking on the used market as in this case.

[Mustard]

Andrew D said:

Methane Bloke said:

BMW diesels produce little smoke (none with the DPF) only torque and power and sip fuel.

... and also produce the diesel death-rattle rather than a pleasing exhaust note.

Out of a 4 pot? Rather listen to my diesel thanks particulary at speed

Plus the 116i/118i Could fight there way out of a paper bag!

Edited by Mustard on Tuesday 7th August 11:33

[NickB12]

Lots more friendly advice here

http://www.babybmw.net/forum/portal.php

I never thought I'd like diesels, but I'm impressed with my 120d. Although more economical, a lower tax band, and more powerful, diesels are dearer to buy and not so economical on mainly short journeys as they take longer to reach optimum temp.

I still average 40mpg though (auto) and 50+ on a run while still performing well.

[Markbishop]

All 1-series became more economical with effect from the April 2007 facelift because there were some changes to the engines and, more than that, BMW introduced what it calls 'efficient dynamics', which is shorthand for a series of changes aimed at making the cars use less fuel. These include:

- Low rolling resistance tyres
- Alternator only recharges battery on the overrun and when braking (regenerative braking)
- Fins in grille close when engine is cold to warm it more rapidly and open (which worsens aerodynamics) only when cooling is required
- Engine switches off when car is in neutral and clutch is released (manuals only)

IMHO the case for the diesel versions is overwhelming if you buy new, irrespective of the mileage you cover, because the residuals are better; improved fuel consumption is a side benefit. Their greater torque also gives driving characteristics that many people prefer.

Of the two, the 120d is quicker by some margin but the 118d, if ordered now, should come with the added benefit of CO2 emissions below 120, which should enable users to get into London without paying the congestion/emissions/class envy/voting Labour tax.

[G Man]

Markbishop said:

Of the two, the 120d is quicker by some margin but the 118d, if ordered now, should come with the added benefit of CO2 emissions below 120, which should enable users to get into London without paying the congestion/emissions/class envy/voting Labour tax.

Mark is this true, I cannot find a reference to it on the londoncc web site, I thought only alternative fuelled cars got exemption

[Andrew D]

Markbishop said:

IMHO the case for the diesel versions is overwhelming if you buy new, irrespective of the mileage you cover, because the residuals are better; improved fuel consumption is a side benefit. Their greater torque also gives driving characteristics that many people prefer.

Well I'd agree that it's certainly down to personal opinion. I'm currently thinking about getting a facelift 1-Series and if I did it would certainly be the 120i; the 120d isn't even on the radar. Diesel power delivery would annoy me too much, as would the diesel rattle and the perception that it's a company car. It seems to me that the high-revving 120i motor is far better suited to a driver's car than the 120d's turbo-torque wallop.

Markbishop said:

which should enable users to get into London without paying the congestion/emissions/class envy/voting Labour tax.

Ironically, as a fixed sum and thus regressive tax, a fixed congestion charge discrimiates against low income drivers, as it constitutes a larger proportion of their income. Which is probably why you still see plenty of uber-barges in the City these days, but no £2.50 econo-boxes.

[telecat]

Thanks for the help. Both myself and the other half prefer rev's so the Petrol is tops for me.

[anonymous-user]

Diesels are better suited to drivers who want to get the most performance out of their car without constantly thrashing it to the redline like a boy racer. For this reason I prefer turbo diesels for everyday driving. There's not much point in having a petrol engined car and shifting up at 4000 rpm all the time. Driving like that you'd be much better off with an equivalent powered turbo diesel for both acceleration and economy. But on the other hand diesels can be frustrating when you do want to use all the revs, because the torque drops away at the top end. Not to mention the uninspiring noise. So it's all horses for courses really. Personally I think the new 123d could be the answer!

[Markbishop]

G Man said:

Markbishop said:

Of the two, the 120d is quicker by some margin but the 118d, if ordered now, should come with the added benefit of CO2 emissions below 120, which should enable users to get into London without paying the congestion/emissions/class envy/voting Labour tax.

Mark is this true, I cannot find a reference to it on the londoncc web site, I thought only alternative fuelled cars got exemption

Currently the situation is as you describe; however, the Mayor has said they intend changing to a situation where the congestion charge is heavier for higher-CO2 vehicles and waived entirely for those under 120g/km. When the 118d facelift model came out its CO2 figure was 123g/kg I believe; unsurprisingly, they've now tweaked that to get round the London issue.

[Markbishop]

Andrew D said:

Well I'd agree that it's certainly down to personal opinion. I'm currently thinking about getting a facelift 1-Series and if I did it would certainly be the 120i; the 120d isn't even on the radar. Diesel power delivery would annoy me too much, as would the diesel rattle and the perception that it's a company car. It seems to me that the high-revving 120i motor is far better suited to a driver's car than the 120d's turbo-torque wallop.

I think if you simply prefer revs to torque then fine, buy a petrol car, but I don't buy the argument that a high-revving motor makes for more of a driver's car.

On the contrary, it seems to me that 'real drivers' like bends, overtaking and carrying the highest possible speed where it's safe to do so and policing is light - primarily rural, twisty, national speed limit roads.

On the basis that the right way to tackle a bend is 'slow in, fast out', the superior torque of a diesel car will accelerate you out of a typical bend quicker than the equivalent petrol; it's also better suited to opportunistic overtaking.

There's also a specific issue with rear-driven cars, where you want to be able to dial in more shove from behind to counter oversteer; in most cases this will be more forthcoming from a torquey diesel than a weedy petrol engine.

For me, a 'real drivers' car' is about handling first, power/torque delivery second and largely not about engine note (though diesels are a lot better than they used to be in this regard) and not at all about image and what people think of my choice of motor (your 'company car' comment).

It costs nothing to take a test-drive in a 120d, or even the forthcoming 123d (a very promising propositon indeed). You might like it.

[anonymous-user]

If you take a diesel and petrol engine with identical peak power, ultimate performance will be the same, but the diesel will give that performance with much less driver effort. Throttle response is normally better on a petrol engine, making it easier to apply subtle mid-corner corrections, but it's much more important to be in the optimum gear. For effortless everyday use I much prefer diesel engines, but for a full-on sportscar petrol still has the edge, if only for the sound!

As far as the 1 series goes I'd choose the 120d over the 120i every time. But it would be a tougher choice between the 123d and 130i. That would come down to the car's intended usage. As a daily drive I would choose the 123d (that's what I've got my eye on next). But as a weekend toy, I'd choose the 130i.

[Andrew D]

Markbishop said:

it seems to me that 'real drivers' like bends, overtaking and carrying the highest possible speed where it's safe to do so and policing is light - primarily rural, twisty, national speed limit roads.

On the basis that the right way to tackle a bend is 'slow in, fast out', the superior torque of a diesel car will accelerate you out of a typical bend quicker than the equivalent petrol; it's also better suited to opportunistic overtaking.

I'd agree with your appraisal of what constitutes an entertaining drive, but I disagree about the merits of diesel torque.

Torque figures are fundamentally meaningless unless you take into account the gearing, as that translates the torque into tractive effort. A high-revver allows shorter gearing so, even though the force turning the crank is less (i.e. the "peak torque" figure), the gearing is shorter and thus the torque turning the wheels can be comparable. Diesels, however, rely on high turbo boost pressures which means lag. Whilst a turbo diesel gives you a big whack of torque when the turbo comes in, you can really get caught with your pants down is it's not spinning. I'd much rather have a petrol motor primed at 4,000 revs if I'm exiting a corner or going for a pass.

Markbishop said:

There's also a specific issue with rear-driven cars, where you want to be able to dial in more shove from behind to counter oversteer; in most cases this will be more forthcoming from a torquey diesel than a weedy petrol engine.

For me, a 'real drivers' car' is about handling first, power/torque delivery second and largely not about engine note (though diesels are a lot better than they used to be in this regard) and not at all about image and what people think of my choice of motor (your 'company car' comment).

Again, torque figures are misleading. And ironically, a big shove of turbo boost is more likely to upset the chassis and provoke a surprise oversteer moment than a nice linear petrol delivery. Besides which diesel motors weigh more, so it's 1-0 to petrol on the handling front.

[anonymous-user]

Agree that longer gearing makes the diesel torque figures look less impressive at the wheels. But the 120d still comfortably beats the 120i on all performance measures, particularly the all important in-gear acceleration. While the gearing is approx 30% higher on the diesel, the peak torque is a whopping 66% higher. Peak power on the diesel is also slightly up, hence the fractionally higher max speed. It's no contest on pure performance in this particular case. You'd have to rev the nuts off the 120i just to keep the 120d barely in sight.

Also agree with the point about increased weight of the diesel (75kg) adversely affecting the handling. But I wouldn't say it was a big deal.

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 9th August 12:20