|
I do about 9k miles per year. I intend to buy a 1994 or 1995 5 series BMW, but don't know whether to go for a 525td(s) or a 520i petrol...is it worth paying the extra for a diesel given my low annual mileage?
|
|
Im waiting to pop over to Germany and collect my BMW import. Its a diesel but I gather if you do less than about 12k miles a year, it make financial sense to buy a petrol car. So, if you only do 9k, I'd say go petrol unless you can see your mileage going up quickly.
|
|
|
As has been said on another thread, the 525td engine is now a bit outdated. It was quite refined in its day but wasn't much more economical than a petrol engine.
The 520i has one of the best BMW engines, the M50, but is rather underpowered for the E34 body, so it is a bit lacking in performance and is no better than the 525i for economy.
I wouldn't hesitate to go instead for a 525i petrol. This is far sprightlier than the 520i and as good, if not better, on fuel.
The M50 engines are known to be extremely reliable, the only weak point being the original water pump impellers which were plastic and could break up. Mine broke up at about 100,000 miles but thankfully the automatic Check Control system warned me very quickly that there was a coolant temperature problem and I stopped the engine before any overheating damage was done. The genuine BMW replacement pumps have a metal impeller.
www.unixnerd.demon.co.uk/bmw.html has lots of good information on the BMWs.
|
Thanks for the advice guys.
I've seen quite a few nice 525i advertised at decent prices - I think people (including me) are frightened off by a 2.5l petrol engine, but you reckon it's as economical as the 520i.
I checked Parker's price guide to compare 520i against 525td - they claim the 525td should be £260 dearer than the 520i; this is not what I'm finding on autotrader.co.uk - diesels are about £700 dearer.
|
If you do go down the diesel route I think it would be better to consider the 525tds rather than the 525td. But as already mentioned the new common rail diesels are much better than the old ones. I have a 530d but had a 325tds before hand.
PERSONALLY I disagree with those who say that there is no point in getting a diesel unless you drive x many miles a year. I prefer the way a diesel engine presents its power and do not mind redlining at 4800rpm. I sometimes borrowed a 325i and found it more tiring to drive as it really needed quite a few revs to get going.
Suppose it comes down to personal preferrences
|
|
|
JB, it may interest you to know the official fuel consumption figures ...
520i
At 56 mph, 40.9 (manual) and 43.5 (auto)
At 75 mph, 34.0 (manual) and 35.3 (auto)
Urban cycle, 24.4 (manual) and 22.6 (auto)
Average, 31.7 (manual) and 31.4 (auto)
525i
At 56 mph, 41.5 (manual) and 45.6 (auto)
At 75 mph, 34.5 (manual) and 36.7 (auto)
Urban cycle, 23.3 (manual) and 22.4 (auto)
Average, 31.4 (manual) and 32.1 (auto)
Comparing the performance (0-62 mph):
520i is 10.6 (manual) and 11.7 (auto)
525i is 8.6 (manual) and 9.5 (auto)
Hope this helps.
|
Dizzy,
thanks a lot [again] - any figures on the 525tds?
|
John,
Referring to my 1992 BMW owner's handbook again, the figures for the 525tds are:
At 56 mph, 55.4 (manual) and 54.3 (auto)
At 75 mph, 40.9 (manual) and 42.2 (auto)
Urban cycle, 31.0 (manual) and 28.8 (auto)
Average, 40.4 (manual) and 39.2 (auto)
0-62 mph: 11.0 (manual) and 11.6 (auto)
I see you have posted a query on John Burns' BMW website. Good idea, but please note my response to your posting.
By the way, have you noticed how the automatics are a bit thirstier around town but are better than the manuals at higher speeds? As you may have guessed, this is down to the higher gearing plus the torque converter lock-up feature of the automatics.
Also, I agree entirely with Chad's comments about the M50 engine being far better than the earlier one. I also agree with his comment about the later engines with single VANOS having better drivability (more torque low down). Even the engines with single VANOS need revving for best results since they are still a bit flat low down, the automatics hiding this flatness to an extent.
Finally, the M50 was introduced in September 1992, not 1990/91 as I said earlier.
|
Thanks again Dizzy,
I don't think I'll consider an auto - HJ's car by car breakdown suggests they're not a great autobox - have also seen auto gearbox problems mentioned quite a bit.
PS - I replied on JB's site.
|
I think what HJ means is that, if they DO go wrong, the automatic boxes are not easy for auto specialists to repair; they would prefer to fit an exchange box.
As for failure to change the fluid and filter at the correct intervals, I assume HJ is referring to those models where changes are specified by BMW, which does not apply to the ZF 5-speed box fitted to the later 525i E34s. I haven't heard any suggestion that this auto box is troublesome.
Whichever you go for, I'm sure you'll enjoy the E34.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_COLON_no_upscale()/cdn.uk.prod.group-mobility-trader.com/images/cas/96a8826a927ac6e3e47e850cbc67710f/2b4fa80ef7cacb4d114c7bcc6a79af5a.jpg)
