Thanks very much Mercian and Falkirk. Ordered it today so here's hoping my first dip into BMW water will not be a chilly one.
Noted your contribution to the Sat Nav question and will wait and see, it will have to go some though to beat my little MIO unit. Other than that went for the 244 alloys, lth and bluetooth all in Deep Sea Blue.
|
|
Nice - enjoy it.
|
|
That's a helluva big car for a 4-cyl diesel, even with 177 bhp. IMO the 5 needs 6 cylinders with a fat wave of low-down torque. I'm a 320d (165) driver, BTW.
|
That's a helluva big car for a 4-cyl diesel
It's smaller than a 4dr Mondeo! (Without checking, I'll bet the BMW is heavier though).
The 4 cyl engines in 5 Series (and E Class) are more than adequate especially with an auto box. They're much more powerful than they used to be and the torque becomes a bit irrelevant as the box downshifts when it needs to.
|
|
I have a 520d SE touring manual, an 06 so slightly less powerful (166bhp off the top of my head). I'm very impressed with it. I also test drove a 525d (Auto) and found the 520d was better (OK ones Manuel one Auto). It's quicker then my prevous C220 Estate (Auto) handles superbly and returns an average of 43MPG. Nothings gone wrong in the 31000 miles I have had it, the Runflats on the rear have only just been changed and the front ones are orginal (I bought the car at 15000 miles so presume they are). However the Runflats will not go the mileage claimed once flat - I managed about 20 miles before the tyre started to breakup!
|
|
Reddy, that's interesting. I spoke as one who's not exactly stunned by the performance or dfrugality (approx 42 mpg) of my 13 onth-old 3 with the same engine. Clearly the 2.0d 5 works for you!
|
|
|
Reassuring reddy - thank you
|
|
|
|
Ford Mondeo 2.0TDCi - 1592 Kg
BMW 520 - 1510 kg
According to CAR magazine......!
|
|
The E220 is considerably less powerful compared to the 520D. The E220 is also less economical - it also consumes roughly 10% more fuel.
|
Anyone tried Merc's E200 Kompressor ? It's only 1.8-litre to be honest, 180 PS if I remember correctly. I wonder how it copes with that 5-speed autobox. E280, which is a proper 3-litre V6 costs much more, not the mention the autobox itself, which doesn't come as standard. Therefore, a E200 (Auto) with leather, xenons and probably some other extras, equals E280 (Manual) with cloth, simple H7 bulbs and... that would be all, I'm afraid. Besides, who needs that kind of V6's ooommphh with all those cameras around ?
|
Anyone tried Merc's E200 Kompressor ? It's only 1.8-litre to be honest 180 PS if I remember correctly. I wonder how it copes with that 5-speed autobox.
One of the magazines (What Car, I think) had one on long term test a couple of years ago, which included driving it across mountains in Europe, and they said it was more than adequate.
|
|
|
|
The E220 is considerably less powerful compared to the 520D.
>>
It's not that much less - they both keep bumping these engine's outputs up. MB has 170BHP vs BMW's 177. The MB has more torque 400 vs BMW's 350, although in an auto that's not much of an issue.
The E220 is also less economical - it also consumes roughly 10% more fuel.
>>
On the manufacturers websites it's actually about 20% worse - although BMW generally do produce some astonishing MPG stats. I think they've really mastered how to get the best out of the EU tests. Most people won't get near the claimed figures 50MPG combined figure for the auto (MB E220CDi is 42MPG for the auto).
|
|
|
|
Or a 320 SE 1445 kg
Makes a Mondeo look a trifle "large" bearing in mind that there's a fair bit of extra powertrain weight in the 3 series.
|
I had a brief drive in my mate's 08 320d Coupe at the weekend, and I have to say this engine is blinding. It pulls from the floor all the way round to the red line, and thanks to the typically short travel BMW accelerator pedal feels really responsive. In the 3 it's quite quick too, and the noise is well insulated.
I know the 5 is heavier, but I wouldn't mind betting it makes a fair fist of hauling it along.
Disappointing vibration at idle, with visible wobbles from the gearlever - that was my only real complaint, and mostly noticeable because everything else from the power delivery to the accelerator response was absolutely spot on.
Cheers
DP
|
|
I agree I used to have an E46 320 as a loan car once upon a time, cracking torque linked to usable power and economy, compared to the 330d was a trifle viby. Far more refined than the VAG diesels I've driven..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Pugugly!
Edited by std289l on 12/03/2008 at 00:12
|
Had my 528i SE Auto for 10 years from new, 728 prior to that, and today had a test in a 520d SE Auto. Wonderful motor, and if it gets anywhere near the suggested 50mpg, we'll be very chuffed.
|
if it gets anywhere near the suggested 50mpg
In the rival newspaper that cannot be named nor linked to, there was an article in the Sunday edition (i.e. yesterday) titled " Toyota Prius proves a gas guzzler in a race with the BMW 520d ".
|
It was a manual 520d which averaged 50.3 mpg from London to Geneva against the 48.1 mpg of the Prius - which is not at its best on long motorway runs where the petrol engine is running most of the time.
But the writer thought that an automatic 520d would have been about 5 mpg worse. You could say that that would be a fairer comparison against the automatic Prius.
|
You could say that that would be a fairer comparison against the automatic Prius.
Sure, the test was biased. The point is that the BMW 520d returned more than 50mpg that the previous poster was looking for as a benchmark.
|
|
Some people also believe that the 5 series is ugly, but boy is he pretty when up against a Prius.
|
|
|
The point is that the BMW 520d returned more than 50mpg that the previous poster was looking for as a benchmark.
Although 40MPG would probably be nearer the mark in everyday use.
I have a Merc C270CDi auto. I can get it to 50MPG+, but it takes a 150 mile motorway run at a steady 70MPH to display that. Free flowing urban driving it will do 40MPG. Five mile commutes from a cold start and it's doing 30MPG.
|
|
A 520d M Sport is definitely on the radar as my next car. But then again, I do change my mind three times a day (and I've got another two years to go)
|
again I do change my mind three times a day
I'm glad it's not just me ! Most days I'm definately keeping my current car for ever............but then the accursed Autotrader just leaps on to my screen and like a drug addict I just start....................;-)
|
|
and me too......went to see a client in my Roomster, and I found myself leering at his Freenlander........a sure sign of madness.
|
Following this thread, can I ask people's opinion on an options choice? My budget reaches only as far as a 520d Touring but with quite a few options. I'm trying to choose between the M Sport or spec'ing up an SE with Sports Seats, upgraded wheels etc plus the Visibility Pack. But I can't stretch to an M Sport with Visibility Pack! I just can't make my mind up between these two - M Sport suspension or Visibility Pack...
Most of my miles (30k per annum) are on the Motorway and although I drive briskly I can't believe the humble 520d really needs that suspension, though it does look much better in my eyes. Is the M Sport ride really that much firmer a ride than the SE? I used to have a 3-series touring with the optional sports suspension and found that pretty hard on long trips. So would the Visibility Pack be a better way to spend the money?
|
I found the M Sport option too harsh/ uncomfortable compared to the SE which you may find stiff enough I think - the interior also felt too gloomy compared to the SE.
It does look nice, but I can't help feeling that the M Sport pack looks slightly fraudulent on a 520d, but the salesmen will tell you the "look" is what buyers want, so if that's what buyers want, fair enough.
I have the SE with the visibility pack, which comes into its own if you do lots of night driving or use lots of unlit roads - the headlights are pretty astonishing, but, as with all xenons, can annoy other drivers.
If you like quality sound, the upgraded loudspeaker option is better than the standard sound system and the USB option is a must-have as you can simply plug in a USB stick and use the I-Drive as a big jukebox without the need for a for MP3 player/ IPod. The I-Drive is very easy to use once accustomed and is only as distracting as you make it.
|
Hi Raeburn. Personal choice of course but I do 30k a year and I have just ordered the SE as I know everytime I go over a UK standard pot-hole I will thank the lord I had not chosen the M Sport.
The looks of the M Sport are nice but the internal headlining is very black and it is a gloomy place to be. The extra cost for what you get is hard to justify as well.
A neighbour has just taken delivery on a saloon 2.0d M Sport and he likes it but says the wheels are a pig to clean and take him nearly an hour to do all four. He likes the very hard ride but many forum's I looked at had people moaning as if they had never considered it would be an issue. The standard runflats on the SE will make it firm enough, thanks!
I only ordered mine 2 weeks ago and BM were doing a special where you could get Business Sat Nav and 6 disc CD changer combined for just £350. An option I did not need but would be nice and will add to the future residuals.
Adaptive lighting sounds good but can only be ordered with Xenons. The only thing I believe is the case is the by law they must automatically adjust for height as you drive. The downside being that road conditions change faster that the lights adjust (although I have not tested this theory). They do sound good though, especially the cornering lighting bit.
The only other options I added was the Bluetooth with telematics to go with the satnav and my mobile that seemed a sensible option.
Do watch out for build time on the 5 touring at the moment. There appeared to be a 4-5 week time when they would not be manufacturing for some reason in the coming months.
|
I have just ordered the SE as I know everytime I go over a UK standard pot-hole I will thank the lord I had not chosen the M Sport.
I've no idea if this is common across all BMW's, but I did read that on the 3 Series, the Sport models can be more comfortable as their dampers are better (adaptive gas filled??) than on the SE models. Not really sure how you'd be able to check this though. I guess tyre porfile is also a significant issue.Adaptive lighting sounds good but can only be ordered with Xenons. The only thing I believe is the case is the by law they must automatically adjust for height as you drive. The downside being that road conditions change faster that the lights adjust (although I have not tested this theory).
Leveling doesn't work like that - it's a one off process when the car is started, depending on the load the car is carrying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
