A 320 is still on the shortlist - expensive and less standard equipment than the competition but arguably good enough to drive to be worth it.
My instinct is towards the 320d, as I do 20,000 a year - but the 320i is almost £2,000 cheaper on list price - making a very long payback period for the diesel.
I haven't tried a petrol 320 yet and need to - but has anyone any thoughts on the merits of one v. the other? I thought this had been aired already on the forum, but can't find it.
(Incidentally what the 320d has over the VAG diesels is (a) refinement and (b) absence of turbo lag and the sudden shove, later than you need it.)
|
I had a 56 plate 320i from 7 miles to 1000andsomething.
It was, in my opinion, underpowered and not particularly economical but was an otherwise good car. As a result, I'd be happier with the diesel version irrespective of your mileage.
|
|
|
on mpg given, 38.2 vs. 49.6, 120 gallons a year is the difference, so about £500/year saving. But if you're going to sell at 3 years old, I suspect you'd get every penny of your £2,000 back in higher used value.
So you're paying £500/year for the petrol over the diesel in effect.
|
|
The new 320i is a 4 cyl where as the previous one was a sweet 2.2 six, though how it can be called under powered I just dont know! How does a 325i compare price wise with the 320d?
|
Quite easily - 150bhp from a petrol engine in this class is simply not enough. I had to cane it to get any sort of performance out of it and this does not suit my driving style. It was a nice car ruined by poor specification (It was an ES) and an underpowered 4 cylinder engine.
|
150bhp from a petrol engine in this class is simply not enough ............... a nice car ruined by poor specification (It was an ES) and an underpowered 4 cylinder engine.
You're spoilt!
;-)
|
|
|
Quite easily - 150bhp from a petrol engine in this class is simply not enough.
Doesn't sound that bad, 105hp/tonne, which beats say the Fiat Panda 100hp which does 103hp/tonne.
Not a GTI performance, but not sure if anyone buying a low-end BMW expects that?
|
|
It's simply not enough, I mean, getting from the sliproad to the BMW lane as quickly as possible became a long, drawn out process!
|
Simply not acceptable is it? :-)
My minimum power requirement for my upcoming winter car is 170bhp, which convieniently includes some of my favourites, when it's time for the next car but one, I think I'll stick the minimum up to 195bhp. Now what is that equal to? 325i Anyone? :-)
Personally I'd go with the 320d out of that choice, but if I had the full free reign I'd buy a 325i and to hell with the bit extra fuel consumption!
Blue
|
|
|
It's simply not enough I mean getting from the sliproad to the BMW lane as quickly as possible became a long drawn out process!
I guess gaps between cars become extremely small when driving one, so you need some power to be able to get in them.
|
|
320D no question- although I'd remap it as a matter of course. The petrol will feel significantly slower due to the weight of the car and less torque. BMW make some great petrol engines but I'd only consider the 6 cylinder models.
|
The answer is a Lexus IS250.
It's a 2.5 v6 but the (well equipped) base model is 320 rather than 325 money. I strongly recommend the auto 'box.
On a run I get 40+ mpg (but much less in town).
|
|
I noticed BMW in the US have just changed the *entry* level 3 Series from the 325i to the 328i, but it actually now has a 3L engine. $33K :-(
|
|
£16,500 OTR? Yep: it seems so from the US site. Must be losing money at that, or perhaps the UK price subsidises the American market? Wonder what the price is at the factory gate, before the dealer and other mark-ups.
|
The only 320i I have experience of was a 1996 E36 model which I was given as a temporary company car until my Peugeot 406 turned up. Very smooth, sounded fantastic, yet surprisingly slow, and I could never get more than 25 mpg out of it, even driving it ridiculously gently.
But I suspect the engine has been updated since then.
Cheers
DP
--
04 Grand Scenic 1.9 dCi Dynamique
00 Mondeo 1.8TD LX
97 Ford Fiesta 1.4 16v Chicane (for sale)
|
'96 320i was a 150bhp 6 cyl, lacking in torque, the later 170bhp 2.2 was much better though still not as flexible as many 2.0 4cyls. Is200s have the same problem as did the 155bhp 2.0 (actually 2.1) V6 fitted to the X-Type for a while.
|
Must be losing money at that ...
*NO* chance! US prices are without tax, though. There's no VAT of course, but local sales tax, and registration charges etc would add something like $3500 to that price.
My US colleagues tell me that standard college grads car is 325 or (perhaps bizzarely to us) Merc C230 and there are often lease offers at $299/mth (plus the $3500 up front).
|
My US colleagues tell me that standard college grads car is 325 or (perhaps bizzarely to us) Merc C230 and there are often lease offers at $299/mth (plus the $3500 up front).
Strangely though, used cars suffer more depreciation than in the US, despite the far greater affordability of new ones over there. Perhaps we are more snobby about having a new vehicle.
|
I noticed BMW in the US have just changed the *entry* level 3 Series from the 325i to the 328i but it actually now has a 3L engine. $33K :-(
Americans dislike small engines, possibly due to vastly cheaper fuel.
In the US, the base Volvo S80 is the 6-cylinder 3.2 litre engine, priced at £19k equivalent.
In the UK, the base model is a (less powerful) turbo-charged 2.5 litre 5-cylinder, costing £24k. The same 3.2l costs £31k.
|
...BMW in the US ... the 328i, but it actually now has a 3L engine. $33K :-(
are you comparing like with like specification?
incidentally, apparently the bmw uk web site recently won an award as one of the most user friendly web sites. i tend to agree. what i find puzzling is that the german and us web sites are each laid out differently to the uk versions. the us site has a facility to compare models within bmw range as well as with competitors.
www.bmw.co.uk/bmwuk/about/sitemap
www.bmwusa.com/about/sitemap
|
are you comparing like with like specification?
Of course not - the US version is significantly better equipped, inclusing such thing as sun (although they call it moon) roof, and 4yrs/50K miles servicing. Bizzarely rear parking sensors, standard on 3 Series here for years, are not standard in the US. Perhaps their parking spaces being much bigger mean they don't need them?
|
|
As the owner of a 330i I can say the 320d is pretty good. Bag a good one however with warranty, as they are known for catastrophic turbo failure ruining the engine. Power quite reasonable. The 320i I have driven as a loan car. 4 pot 2.0 litre engine is quiet and refined, but does have to be worked. The result for me was the the same MPG (30 average) as my current 330i which is of course considerably less stressed! Both were with auto/steptronic boxes which are quite simply superb and in my view, the best out there. With your mileage I would suggest the diesel.
|
I have a 320iSE current shape. 0-60 in just under 9 secs 137Mph is quick enough for me, although I know the 320d is quicker to 60 and has a load more torque. Long term I think the diesel will be more expensive to maintain. Potentially lots more to go wrong, turbo and high pressure injection system expensive if things go wrong. Old 320d has reputation for going bang neccesitating engine replacement or turbo and at the least.
|
As the owner of a 330i I can say the 320d is pretty good. Bag a good one however with warranty as they are known for catastrophic turbo failure ruining the engine.
{snipquote}
The problamatic turbos are from 09/2001 to 11/2003. Outside these time frames your turbo should be fine.
I have a late 2002 320D - yes my turbo went at 90k - even though it was outside the warranty, BMW still contributed the cost of parts. I also have the equivalent 2.0 valvetronic engined 318Ci (2003 model). The diesel is a much faster car. Consumption wise, I get about 31-33mpg from the petrol and 43-46mpg from the diesel.
|
|
You get 40+ out of a 2.5 V6?
MD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The 320d felt noisy, hard work and wearing on long 30mph stretches interrupted by traffic lights. 3rd gear is too noisy, but use 4th you are on the threshold of the turbo kicking in so any demand for power or incline makes it start to feel laboured.
The 320i will obviously have less punch, but it will be more flexible at the bottom end.
On faster A/B roads and motorways I think the opposite would apply: the 320d would be much better.
|
|
In short, if you don't do big miles, why not just have a look for a 325i or 330? MPG exactly the same as smaller engined models, straight 6 sound and performance - big grin....!
|
"Incidentally what the 320d has over the VAG diesels is (a) refinement"
Is the 318d a detuned version of the 320d? I was in a car park the other day and someone driving a 318d asked me for directions. The engine was running and 'refined' wouldn't be my chosen description. It sounded much rougher than the VAG diesel I drive.
|
|
It had just been filled with petrol, or it was a cold start. Most BMW diesels are quiet enough. My VW and Audi were noisy to begin with (30 seconds?) but soon either quietened or caused early hearing loss:)
|
I've got a May 2007 320d - It's noisy ALL the time and I have to say feels weak, as are colleague's examples of the BMW four pot diesel. Save some more money and get a six pot BMW. Had one of those - excellent engine / vehicle.
|
That's interesting, Oilyman. I've now tried a manual and an automatic 320d and both were certainly quiet and refined compared to my B-class (whichIn admit is faint praise!).
The 318d by the way is indeed a detuned version of the 320d: BMW like Mercedes, for some unfathomable reason, don't line up their car names with capacities as they used to. The 318d is also a 2-litre, putting out 122 bhp as opposed to the 320d's 163.
I have to say that I've been slightly underwhelmed by the 320d. Manual - performance good but gearchange disappointingly notchy and quite stiff. Automatic - it's a conventional torque-converter auto and you lose too muxh power. I've been on a lot of test drives recently and this is the first one compared to which the Mercedes felt lively. I needed to wring a lot of rather reluctant power out of it to overtake a stately Volvo doing 40 mph.
To some people it would seem like lese-majeste to talk of a Skoda in the same breath as a BMW, but there is no doubt that so far the Octavia 2.0 TDI has impressed me more than others - and I started this process with a completely open mind. It was helped by the dealer (Ashmore Green of Newbury) letting me go out on my own for an hour or so, and doing so again when SWMBO came with me - but it was excellent all round. Very responsive to the accelerator - good driving position - sharp handling - lots of room without it feeling like a big car - excellent gearchange (I haven't tried aDSG in an Octavia yet but I have in an Audi A3 - quite impressive).
Coming back to BMW, I agree a 6-cylinder would be much better - but almost certainly too expensive. I do a highish mileage and prefer to buy new for peace of mind. If I could afford 6 cylinders I think I'd go back to an A4 Avant.
|
>>The 318d is also a 2-litre putting out 122 bhp as opposed tothe 320d's 163.
Although the BMW UK website quotes the 318d as 122bhp / 280nm torque I thought the 318d was to have the same 143bhp / 300nm 2.0 (I agree with the designations being confusing) as the latest 118d, this is less torquey than the 120d / 320d (163 bhp / 350nm) though is a great balance of good performance, low CO2 and great economy.
|
I thought the 318d was to have the same 143bhp / 300nm 2.0 (I agree with the designations being confusing) as the latest 118d
BMW has considerably messed around with all its engines over the last couple of year and it's still a work in progress. Things are just as bad with the 3L diesel being available with different badges and different states of tune. The revised engines get introduced to different models at different times. I think the X5 3L is just about to be revised.
It must be a nightmare buying used, as it's really not obvious which spec engine you're getting.
|
|
|
|
Interesting to read Oilyman's comments on the 320d.
I've had both 150bhp 320d touring manual and 320d 163bhp auto saloon.
Both were very good performance and economy wise though concern would always nag regarding long term life with early turbo failures not uncommon. Would like to try the new 170bhp version.
The only thing I didn't like about these cars was the top end. Above 120mph they were very vibey.
|
"You get 40+ out of a 2.5 V6?"
On a run, yes. Low 20s in town.
|
|
|
|
|
|
