E91 Straight Six Bearding

[Mike335i]

Diesels are very effective and look great on paper, but I have never loved a diesel engine. The response is not as sharp, they don't rev out, you have so much torque that there is no working the engine for the joy of it.

There will always be a part of me that attributes the diesel with the 'more economical option'. Rightly or wrongly, I respect them but don't desire them either.

[ferrisbueller]

cerb4.5lee said:

The maintenance and running costs of the diesels is a good point on older cars for sure. Did over 200k miles in the 640d/ 330d without any issues but they were nearly new low mileage cars.

The manual gearbox option on the petrols is another good point, and I remember really wanting a 335d years ago but I was put off by Auto only at the time.

I'd imagine in America they'd hardly sell any diesel Bmw's, and if petrol was the same price in the UK as it is in America I don't think diesel performance cars would have took off over here either.

The rise of the diesel was driven in no small part by legislation and taxation around emissions.

[Patrick Bateman]

It depends on the car. Responsive engines are obviously nice but having driven a 640d I'd say the engine suits the type of car it is, not to mention it was nothing like any diesel I'd driven before.

A big cruiser with effortless surge that can go like a scalded cat yet get good MPG, can see why they're a popular daily driver.

[Swervin_Mervin]

Ok guys, getting away from the nonsense of worrying about fuel economy - my headlight washer nozzles aren't dropping back into the bumper fully. Is this just a case of trying to get to the mechanism to grease it up or is it more involved?

On a general note, the car is having new GY Eagle F1s on the front next week to replace the Vredesteins which have been on there for 50k and about 5yrs! It's then having a Hunter alignment done at Infiniti Stockport the day after, and that should hopefully be the last outlay for some time. They must think I'm daft as it'll be the 3rd time it's been there for alignment!

I've got some 15mm spacers to go on the rear but will probably wait a few weeks until after I've got a long trip out of the way.

[lord trumpton]

Swervin_Mervin said:

Ok guys, getting away from the nonsense of worrying about fuel economy - my headlight washer nozzles aren't dropping back into the bumper fully. Is this just a case of trying to get to the mechanism to grease it up or is it more involved?

On a general note, the car is having new GY Eagle F1s on the front next week to replace the Vredesteins which have been on there for 50k and about 5yrs! It's then having a Hunter alignment done at Infiniti Stockport the day after, and that should hopefully be the last outlay for some time. They must think I'm daft as it'll be the 3rd time it's been there for alignment!

I've got some 15mm spacers to go on the rear but will probably wait a few weeks until after I've got a long trip out of the way.

Get someone to operate, grab one then unclip the cover. You can then see the plastic tubing and see what it causing the resistance.

[ferrisbueller]

As above. Don't pull them up by the cover, the BMW tax on replacements is savage.

You can access them via the wheelarch. Sometimes a clean and some silicone spray will get them going again, otherwise replacing them is quick and they're not hideously costly. I know a number of people who have simply disconnected the motors as they're pretty ineffective anyway. I think it's an MOT issue if they're not operational so they just plug it in again at MOT time.

[gizlaroc]

ferrisbueller said:

cerb4.5lee said:

The maintenance and running costs of the diesels is a good point on older cars for sure. Did over 200k miles in the 640d/ 330d without any issues but they were nearly new low mileage cars.

The manual gearbox option on the petrols is another good point, and I remember really wanting a 335d years ago but I was put off by Auto only at the time.

I'd imagine in America they'd hardly sell any diesel Bmw's, and if petrol was the same price in the UK as it is in America I don't think diesel performance cars would have took off over here either.

The rise of the diesel was driven in no small part by legislation and taxation around emissions.

Also, the way the US works out the official City and Highway MPG figures there is far less of a reason for customers to buy the diesel model as their figures are far more realistic compared to the EU MPG figures.


It is hard to show comparisons as so few models that we have here in both diesel and petrol they have there.

One example was the Mercedes E250d and E250 though, we had both here as they did.

UK MPG figures were

E250d
44mpg Urban
58mpg Extra Ubran

E250
31mpg Urban
39mpg Extra Urban


US MG figure (converted to UK gallons)....

E250d
33mpg City
44mpg Highway

E250
27mpg City
38mpg Highway





Those US figures also seem to matched what most get on Fuelly and the forums too.


Where as I don't know anyone on the Merc forums who owns the 250d and is getting 44mpg round town and nearly 60mpg on a run, in fact nearly every other post is in the "Is something up with my MPG?" thread.



I have said it time and time before, every single time I have had the same car in petrol and diesel equivalent the difference has been between 10-20% at most.
I do around 20k miles a year, half of which is sub 10 mile journeys.

If I was doing 30k miles a year withe the extra as longer runs I am sure that gap would increase a bit more, however, if I was doing only 12k miles a year with 10k of it sub 10 mile journeys the gap would be even less.


On a car that is losing £400 a month, with insurance, tax, tyres, servicing, upkeep and the fact I am putting in petrol regardless of whether diesel or petrol, the difference is around a 3-4% overall saving buying diesel.
I just don't think people ever work out the true costs of cars.


Also, there seems to be this argument about petrol vs diesel and performance, the reality is too many are arguing NA vs FI.

For me personally I prefer a NA petrol that has 'enough' poke.

I have a Mercedes E350 petrol, 3.5 V6 306hp auto waft machine and I have a 530d Touring which is meant to do the same job, in all honesty I prefer the BMW, mainly because of the seats, everything about the power train is better on the Mercedes though.

School run of 6 miles both come back showing 26mpg, long run the E350 is 35mpg calculated the BMW is 38mpg calculated.


I have had the following and all have been within 10-20% of each other MPG wise....

E46 330i - 330d
E39 530i - 530d
s210 E320 vs E320cdi
S211 E350 - E320cdi
S212 E350cdi - E350
E61 535d - E91 335i (yeah one is slightly lighter but the 335i was more economical)
A6 2.8 - 2.5tdi
A6 Avant 3.0tdi - 3.2fsi

None of them did considerably better on fuel being diesel.


One thing I stopped doing was looking at the OBC.
Often the diesel would say 40mpg and the petrol 30mpg and I would start to really think "should have bought the diesel".
Reality was the OBC on the petrol was spot on where as the diesel was often 4mpg out!

So, in reality 6-7mpg difference at the most over a tank, more often than not 4mpg.

Then you work that out in money terms.

20,000 miles a year in the diesel is £58 a week in fuel.
20,000 miles a year in the petrol is £65 a week in fuel.

I spend more than that on coffee and sweets when filling up.


My car is £400 a month, my insurance is £40 a month, service plan is £55 a month, tyres average £40 a month and tax £20 a month.
That is £555 a month and then I have fuel.
Diesel is £251 and petrol £281, so a £30 premium.

So £806 vs £836 a month, so 3.5% premium for the petrol.

My E350 is now on 110k miles, my 530d is on 106k miles.
One of them has had water pump, EGR, thermostats, swirlflaps, front suspension work and the other has had a DRL replaced as it was cracked.


It really comes down to which you prefer, I genuinely believe that diesels actually cost more to run when you work it all out properly, certainly 'most' of the ones I have owned have done.

ML270cdi vs ML350 3.7 V6 petrol was an exception. 28mpg vs 18mpg was a big difference. However, on the diesel the fact I had to have a new manifold, new cats, new EGR and new injectors brought the overall costs pretty close.


I have however run things like the E91 320d that was great, on mpg, 40+ round town and nearly 60 on a steady 50mph run.
Problem is I hated the engine in that car.

I think too many compare a 270hp 6cyl Petrol with a 180hp 4cyl diesel and say "Wow! diesel is so effecient!! It's amazing MPG."
Of course it is, but you're not comparing apples with apples.

Take out say an Audi A3 (I use that as I have done) in both 2.0tdi and 1.4tfsi spec.
On my 90 mile commute, both on a Sunday so no traffic and fair, they both did ....... 44.8mpg.
The petrol was lighter, nicer gearbox and clutch, revved nicer, sounded nicer and with the figures worked out cheaper overall by some margin.

I got figures for the Q3, the diesel was £320 a month, the petrol was £240 a month. Why? Because the petrol was £3k cheaper but after 3 years and 30 miles they were both the same residual. Now, for someone doing 10k miles a year that difference in monthly is like Audi paying for pretty much all your fuel.
Yet my mate at Audi said no matter how much you explained this to customers they looked at you as if you are mental and said "We'll go for the diesel, petrol is expensive."

Not sure we will ever get over that in the UK?

Edited by gizlaroc on Thursday 19th April 11:00

[JakeT]

Interesting write up. The way one drives has more of a bearing on fuel economy than the fuel anyway I'd say.

[ferrisbueller]

gizlaroc said:

Lots

The EU emissions/MPG cycles are a joke vs real life and are getting an overhaul. Cars have been engineered to perform best against them and inherently compromised as a consequence.

I've driven lots of diesel and petrol BMW and could easily agree with a conclusion that the diesel is the better everyday car than the petrol when looking at 335d vs 335i for example. But that's at a very high level. Once you start looking at detail of overall costs and the depreciation at different ages and mileages of car the balance tips in the opposite direction - for me at least. I've never had a diesel and it's unlikely I ever will.

Comparing a 640d to an N52'd 330i is like comparing a Eurofighter to a Vulcan. They're designed to do different things with technological advances between generations. The 640d depreciated by more than it cost to buy a 2006 330i in the time it took me to type this (-ish )

[cerb4.5lee]

ferrisbueller said:

Comparing a 640d to an N52'd 330i is like comparing a Eurofighter to a Vulcan. They're designed to do different things with technological advances between generations. The 640d depreciated by more than it cost to buy a 2006 330i in the time it took me to type this (-ish )

Okay don't rub the depreciation in!

I always compared them because they're both 3 Litre Straight Six engines when all is said and done. One is slow and thirsty and one is quick and frugal!

I've seen a couple of 640d's today and I do miss that car especially the way it looked. I've got an even bigger depreciation worry with the miles that's being put on my current Merc!

As gizlaroc points out the buying/running/fuel/tax/insurance/depreciation overrides any saving between diesel and petrol in terms of MPG anyway.

[ferrisbueller]

cerb4.5lee said:

ferrisbueller said:

Comparing a 640d to an N52'd 330i is like comparing a Eurofighter to a Vulcan. They're designed to do different things with technological advances between generations. The 640d depreciated by more than it cost to buy a 2006 330i in the time it took me to type this (-ish )

Okay don't rub the depreciation in!

I always compared them because they're both 3 Litre Straight Six engines when all is said and done. One is slow and thirsty and one is quick and frugal!

With all due respect, that's nonsense.

[ferrisbueller]

Mention for Cotswolds again who have sorted me some parts quickly and at a keen price.

Sopers are also usually good.

[gizlaroc]

JakeT said:

The way one drives has more of a bearing on fuel economy than the fuel anyway I'd say.

I agree.

Often, owners who buy petrol also tend to do fewer miles, and this in itself skews the figures somewhat.

I used to compare my M3 with my 535d and it was 21mpg vs 34mpg, quite a difference.

It wasn't until I sold the 535d and started using the M3 as the daily that it truly clicked with me that there isn't as much in it as I first thought, when using the M3 as the daily my average suddenly went up to 30mpg, so only 12% behind the 535d.

Not many use an M3 though to do 20k miles a year up and down the M11, so many just see the 21mpg figures of most owners.

[Swervin_Mervin]

Ferris/Trumpton

Ta muchly. I'll wait until next time I get home to find them stuck out and will pull out and pop the top off.

[cerb4.5lee]

ferrisbueller said:

cerb4.5lee said:

ferrisbueller said:

Comparing a 640d to an N52'd 330i is like comparing a Eurofighter to a Vulcan. They're designed to do different things with technological advances between generations. The 640d depreciated by more than it cost to buy a 2006 330i in the time it took me to type this (-ish )

Okay don't rub the depreciation in!

I always compared them because they're both 3 Litre Straight Six engines when all is said and done. One is slow and thirsty and one is quick and frugal!

With all due respect, that's nonsense.

Well I could never keep up with the 640d when I was in the 330i, and the 330i did 26mpg and the 640d did 40mpg.

Granted the 330i isn't really a slow car but its nowhere near as quick as a 640d in my experience. I couldn't even shake off a F30 330d I had some fun with in the 330i either.

[stevesingo]

In my household we have an E90 330i (S52) manual and an F11 535d (313ps) auto. A couple of weeks ago I met the wife at Tebay services on the M6. In the aim of science reset the journey computers on both before heading home 55mils away, 25 on the M6 and 25 on A roads and 5 in town. Both are run on V Power fuels.

Driving at the same pace within 500m of each other all the way home, the 330i did 39mpg, the 535d did 44mpg. Not a vast difference. 0.73lt. Over 440mile tank full on the 330i the difference is 5.84lt.

When you factor in cost per litre the cost difference on the journey would have been £0.69p. Or £12.54p per 1000 miles, £125.40 for 1000miles.

[cerb4.5lee]

stevesingo said:

In my household we have an E90 330i (S52) manual and an F11 535d (313ps) auto. A couple of weeks ago I met the wife at Tebay services on the M6. In the aim of science reset the journey computers on both before heading home 55mils away, 25 on the M6 and 25 on A roads and 5 in town. Both are run on V Power fuels.

Driving at the same pace within 500m of each other all the way home, the 330i did 39mpg, the 535d did 44mpg. Not a vast difference. 0.73lt. Over 440mile tank full on the 330i the difference is 5.84lt.

That just shows how much more fuel efficient the Manual is compared to the Auto in the 330i. I used to reset the computer on the 330i when I used to go from Newark to Bishops Stortford at weekends, I'd tickle it most of the way and I never saw more than 35mpg.

[zippyonline]

I’m a sad git and keep a spreadsheet of every single fuel fill up and every single bit of maintenance I do to keep an idea of what’s happening on my car. I’ve done about 20k miles on my late 05 N52 330i – manual, it’s recently ticked over 200k miles. I’m on a life average (for my 20k miles) of just over 28mpg, I don’t really commute much or do much town driving, I do a fair bit of motorway and most often transporting mountain bikes across the country to wales etc, where I’ll then be honing across “mountain roads”. My OBC has an average speed of normally somewhere just above 50mph, it often see’s triple digits, and I do give it some stick on the mountain roads (i.e redline in 2nd).

On a run including a bit of 'mountain road', the tank fill-up is about 30mpg. If I’ve been doing just getting places round mountain roads and having fun, I see 23mpg - that's reasonable hooning - but not flat out for any length of time because tbh it's difficult to find anywhere to be able to just stay on it without catching other traffic up etc. - It's happened occasionally though...

Not that I bought the car with fuel economy in mind. It’s a tiny bit worse than my 100bhp FWD 1.6 litre hatchback, so basically it’s affordable – which is what matters!

[ATM]

cerb4.5lee said:

Well I could never keep up with the 640d when I was in the 330i, and the 330i did 26mpg and the 640d did 40mpg. .

I did a good test with a 640d coupe last week and me in the 335i. The 335i was quicker. This was motorway 3 or more runs from 70 or 80 to much higher.

[cerb4.5lee]

ATM said:

cerb4.5lee said:

Well I could never keep up with the 640d when I was in the 330i, and the 330i did 26mpg and the 640d did 40mpg. .

I did a good test with a 640d coupe last week and me in the 335i. The 335i was quicker. This was motorway 3 or more runs from 70 or 80 to much higher.

Strangely I always thought in the 640d if you pinned it at 70 if never felt that quick and I'm not surprised the 335i is quicker. I got battered by a F31 335d in the 640d doing similar to you. A 330i can't compete with the 640d though and 221 torque versus 464 torque shows big time.