RE: Driven: Alpina D5 Biturbo
Discussion
Cheib said:
At £8k over a 535d given the improved spec, performance and chassis I think it's very good value. Trouble is you can get 10% off a 535d pretty easily and Alpina won't think about discounts (at least that's what I have read on these very forums)......so at a £13k difference assuming you get a 10% discount on a 535d I am not so sure.
In relative terms, I think £55k is a bargain, irrespective of discount - I wouldn't expect to get one on an ALPINA. Some stats I cobbled together for a post on another forum:The latest "entry level" ALPINA Five - the recently announced D5 Bi-turbo, itself based upon the 535d - are near enough identical to their flagship 4.6 V8 of a decade ago.
2000 B10 V8 4.6:
Driveline: 4.6l V8 petrol, 5 speed switchable automatic gearbox
Power: 347 bhp
Torque: 354 lb ft
0-62mph: 5.4 secs
Top Speed: 173mph
Economy: 19.3mpg
Emissions: 300g/km
Weight 1,694kg
Price: £54,950
('98-'00, reduced from £63,500 previously, to coincide with the M5 being reduced from £59,995 to £52,000)
2011 D5 Bi-Turbo:
Driveline: 3.0l twin turbo inline 6cyl diesel, 8 speed switchable automatic gearbox
Power: 345 bhp
Torque: 479 lb ft
0-62mph: 5.2 secs
Top Speed: 168 mph
Economy: 45.6 mpg
Emissions: 165 g/km
Weight: 1,840kg
Price: £55,950
Note the similarity of the power output and benchmark stats and the stark contrast in economy (vehicle weight too...). Factor in that standard equipment levels are probably higher and safety features are two generations more advanced, twelve years' inflation and that they're asking near-as-dammit the same price for the same performance - it seems a steal.
Over the same timeframe the M5 has gone from £52k to £73k, a 40% increase - as has the B5 Bi-Turbo cf. the B10 4.6, so it's all relative.
Very interesting historical comparison by Zwolf. Amazing difference in fuel consumption and emissions but you have to be disappointed by the weight increase over this period. Maybe future models will address this like Range Rover are with their next model when they loose between 400 and 500 kg. Gavin
gavinhowe said:
Very interesting historical comparison by Zwolf. Amazing difference in fuel consumption and emissions but you have to be disappointed by the weight increase over this period. Maybe future models will address this like Range Rover are with their next model when they loose between 400 and 500 kg. Gavin
It is very interesting....BMW don't seem too concerned about weight saving...their engines are so much better than anyone else's they don't have to be. Having said that I think I read that each axle of the new X5 will save 150kg which seems ridiculous. Pesty said:
47.9mpg (combined)
I am finding this extremely hard to belive. Maybe if you drive miss daisy around.
I would be amased if I got higher than high 20s'
Wrong. My similarly engined 640d is averaging a gnatts hair under 40mpg in mixed (not hanging around) driving.I am finding this extremely hard to belive. Maybe if you drive miss daisy around.
I would be amased if I got higher than high 20s'
>50mpg on a 70-80 mph motorway run is easily achieved.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
>cough< You can......in Germany.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I'd think with the 8-speed the motor need never leave the sweet spot and it'll grunt out of Alpine hairpins with considerable alacrity. Even if fuel costs are not an issue tank range is; it's th B10's worst feature by far.It's a proper Grand Touring car is what it is.
edo said:
Wrong. My similarly engined 640d is averaging a gnatts hair under 40mpg in mixed (not hanging around) driving.
>50mpg on a 70-80 mph motorway run is easily achieved.
That is still a lot less % than 49.>50mpg on a 70-80 mph motorway run is easily achieved.
Is that what the computer says or what you have verified with what you travel/fill ?
Contigo said:
12MPG is what they got from the 535d when tested on TG. Is it really worth not getting the petrol equivalent to these oil burners?
On track. Whilst side by side with a 545i. Relevance to reality: None.Just like the M3 getting better mpg than a Prius driven at full chat - for the Prius, which the M3 could probably hold station with, without leaving 4th gear once rolling.
Zwolf said:
On track. Whilst side by side with a 545i. Relevance to reality: None.
Just like the M3 getting better mpg than a Prius driven at full chat - for the Prius, which the M3 could probably hold station with, without leaving 4th gear once rolling.
The relevance is that if you drive this car hard it will return very low MPG figures and surely the point of buying a diesel is because you want the economy or it's a company car (most diesel BM's on the road must be) and if you were to buy your own then you would go for the punchy petrol engine. Just like the M3 getting better mpg than a Prius driven at full chat - for the Prius, which the M3 could probably hold station with, without leaving 4th gear once rolling.
Pesty said:
edo said:
Wrong. My similarly engined 640d is averaging a gnatts hair under 40mpg in mixed (not hanging around) driving.
>50mpg on a 70-80 mph motorway run is easily achieved.
That is still a lot less % than 49.>50mpg on a 70-80 mph motorway run is easily achieved.
Is that what the computer says or what you have verified with what you travel/fill ?
What the 35d and 40d engines DO do, is easily eachive 40mpg in real world whilst having a very decent turn of speed.
I think the best info that I've seen came from Tom mallet who drove the tested car over from Buchloe. He got 34mph running hard and fast up to 170mph then 49mph doing a slow drive in the uk. I drove the same car on a demo and the trip average was 39mpg but I don't know what driving this covered.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff