BMW 320d Efficient Dynamics..
Discussion
Whilst not the most PH car in the world, I thought I'd give my thoughts on this now we have had it a few weeks. Quite a few people are looking at these for company cars due to the emissions, and thus low benefit in kind.
As a point of reference, this car replaced my company car, a "normal" 320d m Sport with the 177bhp engine. (it is now 181bhp in the newer ones). I really never found this engine lacking in the real world, and after 36,000 miles, with no effort (fuel card), it was on just over 47mpg.
Spec: 0-60 in 8.0. 109 grams C02 (13% BIK), and 163bhp. 68.9mpg combined.
So we have lost fourteen ponies. If we have, I can't tell the difference! the gearing is all higher (final drive), so it is 500rpm lower in every gear than the standard car. They have also done something clever that I don't understand with counter-weights on the fly wheel which means it will happily run at silly low rpm without the usual struggling engines do.
With the gearing being different it is quite difficult to do a like for like comparison, but there is no way you would tell the difference if you didn't know. mid-range pull is still great, and the engine is even smoother than before - probably due to the fly wheel trickery.
I never had an issue with the run-flats and M Sport suspension (on standard 17's), but the ride on this car is much more compliant - unsurprising given the wheels have lost an inch, have energy saving tyres, and the suspension is not m-sport.
One thing to note it that the car is lower even than the M Sport to improve aerodynamics, and it bottomed out when I tried to park it in a friends garage I had not had issues in with the old car...
To date, with some traffic the car is averaging 56mpg. On a motorway run mid to high 60's are very easily achieved. The tank will easily see a range well in excess of 850 miles. (I think Tom Ford got over 1,000 miles out of one).
As a point of reference, this car replaced my company car, a "normal" 320d m Sport with the 177bhp engine. (it is now 181bhp in the newer ones). I really never found this engine lacking in the real world, and after 36,000 miles, with no effort (fuel card), it was on just over 47mpg.
Spec: 0-60 in 8.0. 109 grams C02 (13% BIK), and 163bhp. 68.9mpg combined.
So we have lost fourteen ponies. If we have, I can't tell the difference! the gearing is all higher (final drive), so it is 500rpm lower in every gear than the standard car. They have also done something clever that I don't understand with counter-weights on the fly wheel which means it will happily run at silly low rpm without the usual struggling engines do.
With the gearing being different it is quite difficult to do a like for like comparison, but there is no way you would tell the difference if you didn't know. mid-range pull is still great, and the engine is even smoother than before - probably due to the fly wheel trickery.
I never had an issue with the run-flats and M Sport suspension (on standard 17's), but the ride on this car is much more compliant - unsurprising given the wheels have lost an inch, have energy saving tyres, and the suspension is not m-sport.
One thing to note it that the car is lower even than the M Sport to improve aerodynamics, and it bottomed out when I tried to park it in a friends garage I had not had issues in with the old car...
To date, with some traffic the car is averaging 56mpg. On a motorway run mid to high 60's are very easily achieved. The tank will easily see a range well in excess of 850 miles. (I think Tom Ford got over 1,000 miles out of one).
You could make an argument that that's the most impressive car on sale today. 1000BHP from a Veyron is one thing but 109g/km and 56mpg from someone who isn't trying is pretty amazing. The fact it still drives as well as a BMW should, seats 4 and is still properly equipped while managing these figures makes most hybrid stuff dead in the water
So another car that falls 20% short of its claimed fuel economy figures. They really need to do something about that test to stop manufacturers tailoring their cars to achieve quite such impossible results, although I'm not quite sure what.
It's still an impressive car, even with the real figures, though.
It's still an impressive car, even with the real figures, though.
arun1uk said:
I'm looking at one of these, or a 318d, at the moment.
The problem I found was that getting the 320ed up to the specification level I wanted, meant that it was actually more expensive overall than the 318d sport plus!
What spec did you go for (if you dont mind me asking)?
Ours was a demo (6 months old), so we made a fair saving, paying less than the list price of the basic car - for a car with £7k of options and service pack. The only box we didn't tick I would have liked to have "kept" was the sports seats.The problem I found was that getting the 320ed up to the specification level I wanted, meant that it was actually more expensive overall than the 318d sport plus!
What spec did you go for (if you dont mind me asking)?
Deep Sea Blue
Oyster Dakota Leather
Electric Sunroof
Sun protection glass (wouldnt bother with this myself)
Professional Media system with HDD, Bluetooth, Telematics, Concierge service, Voice control (brilliant set-up, had before and wanted again)
Harmon Kardon Sound system (awesome system, had this before)
Heated Seats (a must with leather)
Black interior trim instead of the usual silver
Split fold rear seats with Ski bag thingy (didn't have split fold seats before and it was a pain in the ass)
5 year Service Pack
The good news is that now we have a car that does 50-60mpg, I can get something outrageously s
t on petrol like a Merc C63 and we should still "average" 40 between us!!
kambites said:
So another car that falls 20% short of its claimed fuel economy figures. They really need to do something about that test to stop manufacturers tailoring their cars to achieve quite such impossible results, although I'm not quite sure what.
It's still an impressive car, even with the real figures, though.
The tests aren't done by the manufacturer they are done by the government on a rolling road.It's still an impressive car, even with the real figures, though.
The only use of these figures is car to car comparison.
edo said:
The tests aren't done by the manufacturer they are done by the government on a rolling road.
The only use of these figures is car to car comparison.
I'm aware of that, but they aren't even very good for that because some manufacturers are (much) better than others at tailoring their cars to the test. The only use of these figures is car to car comparison.
edo said:
Ozone said:
We have a Honda hybrid on the fleet for congestion charge reasons and the driver is getting 38mpg from it
I get 32mpg in a civic type r, but when I had a Corsa courtesy car, I was only managing 28mpg! I had to try far harder to keep up with traffic and make reasonable "progress"...
I would have had one, but...
NO CRUISE AS STANDARD??
Why, bmw? Most of your fleet customers have bks "no etras" policies - and this is a company rep hack if I ever saw one. Unfortunately, after doing 8 years driving with cruise, then 6 months without, I need cruise back - hence my order for a 318 msport - the only other car with cruise as standard is a 325, and the HR police said no on the basis of engine size (although, the economy and cost of the car were fine, the work to rule sts!)
NO CRUISE AS STANDARD??
Why, bmw? Most of your fleet customers have b
ks "no etras" policies - and this is a company rep hack if I ever saw one. Unfortunately, after doing 8 years driving with cruise, then 6 months without, I need cruise back - hence my order for a 318 msport - the only other car with cruise as standard is a 325, and the HR police said no on the basis of engine size (although, the economy and cost of the car were fine, the work to rule sts!)CampDavid said:
... 109g/km and 56mpg from someone who isn't trying is pretty amazing. The fact it still drives as well as a BMW should, seats 4 and is still properly equipped while managing these figures makes most hybrid stuff dead in the water
If you don't mind driving a diesel, that is; many people seem to prefer petrol engines. Given the choice between two otherwise identical cars, one of which is a diesel and one is a petrol/electric hybrid, I'd probably take the petrol, personally. Edited by kambites on Wednesday 2nd February 13:17
kambites said:
If you don't mind driving a diesel, that is; many people seem to prefer petrol engines. Given the choice between two otherwise identical cars, one of which is a diesel and one is a petrol/electric hybrid, I'd probably take the petrol, personally.
Its very much like the choice of a hammer or screw driver, you choose the correct tool for the job.DaveL86 said:
Its very much like the choice of a hammer or screw driver, you choose the correct tool for the job.
To be honest, I'd probably prefer the petrol for any job. It may be largely irrational, but I just don't trust the reliability of complex modern diesel engines. Hybrids may be a bit of an unknown in many cases, but I still think I'd take my chances with one. RicksAlfas said:
But many modern petrol engines are now using diesel style technology so soon you won't have a choice if you are wanting to avoid direct injection, turbos, stop/start, blah blah....
True, but there's always second-hand cars. It is a significant problem, though. In my experience, modern cars seem to be going backwards in terms of non-fuel cost of ownership.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff