RE: New BMW M550d xDrive

[TheDrBrian]

You'd think if they were really proud of the engine they wouldn't have hidden it under that slab of plastic

[SturdyHSV]

Armrest looks rather a lot like a giant Kit Kat

[xjay1337]

greghm said:

I will never understand why people who can afford to buy these big engines would bother trying to save money on gas...

Or just prefer how a diesel drives

It's impressive. Although the 335d XDrive did 4.8 to 60 I believe, so not massively quicker off the mark.
In gear performance would be impressive.

Harris did a review of the 550d saloon a few years ago.

[GTEYE]

Resolutionary said:

sidesauce said:

greghm said:

I will never understand why people who can afford to buy these big engines would bother trying to save money on gas...

It's not about saving gas more than it is about saving time with less need for stopping for refuelling - some people would rather do it as little as possible (I put myself amongst them).

Surely that's kind of the same thing? Need to refuel less often = having a frugal engine.

I do laugh when I see 640d, 4.0TDi and similar badges though, but they're so common it's probably my mind frame which is out of sync.

Maybe its because 75% of petrol stations have closed in the last 40 years:

1970 - 37,500 petrol stations in the UK

2013 - 8,600 petrol stations....and probably even less now!

That's why range matters.

[Veeayt]

mylesmcd said:

Which will be reflected in the 2nd hand purchase price.

Just imagine tinkering on it in your garage in 15 years time.

[RenesisEvo]

Krikkit said:

4.4s! 400hp... Crikey.

The E39 M5 is quoted at 4.8 seconds from 400bhp/500Nm, against the M550d's 760Nm. Personally I don't think I could tell the difference between 0.4 seconds, especially with the variation that comes from launching a manual car. Impressive for a 3.0 diesel, but not necessarily exciting. Like a Tesla, once you get over the initial acceleration, there's little else to reward the driver.

[underphil]

GTEYE said:

Maybe its because 75% of petrol stations have closed in the last 40 years:

1970 - 37,500 petrol stations in the UK

2013 - 8,600 petrol stations....and probably even less now!

That's why range matters.

on the other hand, over 60% of the 3 litre+ diesels on the road do less than 10K miles per year

so range doesn't appear to matter that much

[mylesmcd]

underphil said:

GTEYE said:

Maybe its because 75% of petrol stations have closed in the last 40 years:

1970 - 37,500 petrol stations in the UK

2013 - 8,600 petrol stations....and probably even less now!

That's why range matters.

on the other hand, over 60% of the 3 litre+ diesels on the road do less than 10K miles per year

so range doesn't appear to matter that much

I'd like some back up on that stat!

[GTEYE]

underphil said:

GTEYE said:

Maybe its because 75% of petrol stations have closed in the last 40 years:

1970 - 37,500 petrol stations in the UK

2013 - 8,600 petrol stations....and probably even less now!

That's why range matters.

on the other hand, over 60% of the 3 litre+ diesels on the road do less than 10K miles per year

so range doesn't appear to matter that much

Fascinating.

For 99.99% of the population, filling up is a pretty tedious event. I'll count you in the 0.01% that seem to like it....

[leakymanifold]

I read somewhere that 60% of statistics are made up

[leakymanifold]

It is strange if the only reason to buy this is because it has better range than an equivalent petrol engine. Why not just have a bigger tank? If it is a cost thing, then buy the 520d just like everyone else whose done the numbers.

[mfp4073]

Well...is there really a market for a new expensive diesel these days? Would people really buy this type of vehicle with their own money?
The used market for diesels is about to nose dive in the near future, best let company car drivers take this one.......if they can!

[culpz]

Hairymonster said:

This could just be the most perfect all-round car, if you can only own one vehicle.

I see what you're saying/getting at. But, if i was to have one vehicle only, it definitely wouldn't be a diesel. That's for sure!

These fast oil-burners can be really impressive though, i will admit. The E60 535D touring that my old man has just got rid of was a serious mile-muncher. It had been mapped to around 350 BHP and a daft amount of torque, which made it a real sleeper and gave it effortless power.

I can only imagine what this version feels like when really going for it and up to speed! Obviously, with the looming demise of diesel in the air, i'm not sure how long these will remain popular for. Also, i'm sure most that do big mileage, will probably more than content with a 530D at a push.

Edited by culpz on Wednesday 26th April 11:46

[DanBMW]

I'm not normally on for writing comments like this..
But have the articles on PH stopped being proof read before they're published? There seems to be at least 2 or 3 mistakes in every article these last few months.

[The Ferret]

British Beef said:

Incredible specs, technically very impressive.

I bet at some point in the future, when 1 turbo needs replacing in the future, the dealer will "recommend changing all 4 to be safe", at some silly cost which approaches the value of the car.

^this

On the rare occasions I've bought a diesel I've dodged anything with any kind of mileage on it unless the turbo had been recently replaced. With 4 of them it really doesn't bare thinking how much the above scenario would cost.

Would not touch with a bargepole.

[Twoshoe]

DanBMW said:

I'm not normally on for writing comments like this..
But have the articles on PH stopped being proof read before they're published? There seems to be at least 2 or 3 mistakes in every article these last few months.

Surely 'seem to be',rather than 'seems to be'.

[Resolutionary]

GTEYE said:

Maybe its because 75% of petrol stations have closed in the last 40 years:

1970 - 37,500 petrol stations in the UK

2013 - 8,600 petrol stations....and probably even less now!

That's why range matters.

Now that I didn't know. Quite astonishing really!

I expect an M550d won't really help you on the range front though, if it's supposed to be taken as a brute of performance, and perhaps aimed at those with a heavy right foot and lots of high-level sales meetings to attend.

As is the trend with press information of late the 47.9mpg figure is probably hugely optimistic.

Edited by Resolutionary on Wednesday 26th April 12:10

[steptoe11]

sidesauce said:

It's not about saving gas more than it is about saving time with less need for stopping for refuelling - some people would rather do it as little as possible (I put myself amongst them).

Bull Carp..........it's all about mpg or these office donkey cars wouldn't exist. I wouldn't trade my v8 for any of them, even if it only does 15mpg. The Japanese where producing equivalent petrol cars in the late 80's early 90's which were designed for 400bhp plus, only they agreed to not exceed 286bhp. RB26 straight six twin turbo and the 1jz straight six all will run at 400+bhp with minor tinckering. Dont come back with the 550d doesn't need tinckering because it's pretty jammed full of crap to break down from the off.

[WCZ]

will be st to drive just like every other diesel

[steptoe11]

mylesmcd said:

I'd like some back up on that stat!

Lease hire gets expensive if you drive excessive miles........do the math.