Hello
Any thoughts on which would be the better buy? Both about 75,000 on clock and full histories ? Both 4 door models. both leather and so forth.
Both seem nice, 530D drove very nicley but I'm worried about long term costs. Have looked at CBC but wondered if anyone here might have experience of both?
Thank you
Edited by Pugugly on 04/09/2009 at 22:32
|
The Honda will probably be the safest place to put your money in terms of repair bills, however, if the BMW has been looked after then there shouldn't be that much goes wrong with it to be honest, they're meant to be a pretty well built car by all accounts.
I have to be honest, if the BMW is the M-Sport model with the nice seats then it would be a hands down winner for me, bigger, more comfortable, and more powerful. The Honda is a perfectly nice car but in reality isn't any better to drive than a Mondeo, the one thing that I will say it has in it's favour is that fit and finish is superb and the seats are very good too, it still ins't a powerful RWD saloon though and there are widespread reports that economy is nothing like it should be.
Overall I would say you're possibly not comparing like with like, the BMW is a whole size above the Accord. What are your priorities from the car?
|
Its got to last and the only thing I worry about is expensive repairs on the BMW. I onnce had a 740i that need a new Rad Cost alot!
BMW is older by about 4 years so wondered if people would say buy the newer honda but the BMW did drive beter.
In reality are both engines good for 150,000 mile if serviced regularly?
|
The Honda diesel is not without issues - cracked manifolds, for example.
The BMW is known to do its turbo. Have you got a trusted BMW indie on hand?
Edited by Bill Payer on 04/09/2009 at 23:43
|
I didm't realise that craked heads were a common problem, also haven't read that the 530d turbos can go. Scary !
|
I didm't realise that craked heads were a common problem also haven't read that the 530d turbos can go. Scary !
Not heads - manifolds.
If you didn't know that then you obviously haven't seen the CarbyCar Breakdown reports - click the tab at the top of the page.
Agree with Avant though now you've said you'll only be doing 12K/yr. If these cars go wrong the bills can be enormous. You'd probably be a lot safer with a petrol version of either car. Especially on the BMW, the diesel MPG advantage would really only be significantly beneficial on long runs. BMW's 530i petrol engine is beautiful. I'm not up on prices but would imagine that the petrol would be a fair bit cheaper as most people will think like you.
Edited by Bill Payer on 05/09/2009 at 01:20
|
|
|
Depending on your annual mileage, do you need a diesel? Modern diesels are so complex that when they go wrong, it tends to be disastrously, and expensively.
I have a BMW of the same vintage (2001) with 75,000 miles - a petrol Z3 2.2, and the engine is in fine fettle.
Edited by Avant on 05/09/2009 at 00:25
|
Chalk?
Or cheese?
Actually, here's the answer. Buy the BMW.
Then, if it goes wrong, you'll have half anticipated it, and you'll be able to roll with it.
Whereas if you bought the Honda and it went wrong, you'd be thinking, "If only I'd bought the BMW."
|
Get the BMW, you will enjoy it more. Head over to bmwland.co.uk to discuss the issue with lots of real life owners, there is a wealth of E39 knowledge over there!
Edited by Blue {P} on 05/09/2009 at 00:31
|
|
Yepthats the thing, you never know. Reason I looked at 530d is that it supposed to be a real good reliable engine overall with reasonable ecomomy. I will do about 12,000 a year but need to carry passengers fairly often, + BMW is said to be a real "fine drive".
I'd buy the the honda because of "implied relibility" and many good reviews.
Honda does have a lovely Satnav as well.
The BM is also 4 years older, should that bother me..don't know cant decide!
|
12,000 miles a year and reliability for years to come - I'd look at a 525 or 530i before the diesel. You'll have a good choice and likely get a year or two newer for your cash.
|
Either way, my advice would be to go for the BMW, it's a much more spacious car if you're regularly carrying passengers, the increased power will help with this when compared to the more breathless engine in the Accord. I did a long run recently in my Mondy V6 with 4 passengers and even I was wishing for a touch more power, although it handled it better than any other car I've owned!
May well be worth giving the petrols a look, the 530D is not a bad engine, but the petrol equivalent (the 530i) is virtually indestructible and should just run and run and run. As others have said, you'll get a better choice with the petrols.
|
I have got a 2004 2.2 cdti executive and out of the two i would say get the Honda. It is 4 years newer!
Does the Honda have FSH? If so, Honda will usually replace the manifold gratis if it goes. Fuel consumption for me is around 44mpg which isnt bad at all. The engine isn't breathless at all, it is an excellent engine but comparing it to a 3 litre is not really like for like.
I also own an xk8 and the Honda does not feel sluggish at all compared to it. You wont get the same kick as you do from the VW PD, but the 140bhp is more than adequate in a well put together car. Executive also gets heated leather and the sat nav is the best i have used.
The Honda dealer network in my opinion is also the best in the country.
The 530d is a great car and i have driven a few but the fact that its 4 years older would sway me towards the Honda every time.
|
Might be an idea to check out competent indy's for either car within travelling distance for you, a large repair at either main dealer will be very expensive.
At the OP's annual mileage i think i'd be looking with an open mind for that elusive 'right' car and not paint meself into a corner on any particular spec, someone might be selling a mint Lexus G300 for example....which a neighbour has just bought on a T plate and looks 2 years old not 10/11.
|
I have a Honda Tourer 2.2 diesel Exec and fuel consumption is excellent. Returning from France recently, and fully loaded with wine etc., it did 56mpg on a mixture of roads from SW France to Le Havre.
The engine ceretainly isn't breathless: it pulled with plenty of grunt. I get about 40mpg running around locally.
|
If you want painless motoring get the Honda. The manifold issue is not that common and other than that they are pretty much bullet proof. They also drive quite well and can do nearly 50mpg.
The BMW is an older car and an old design (early 90's) but if looked after still a very nice right here right now 2009 good drive. All the common E39 issues are documented on here and elsewhere. Look for cooling (radiator/pusher fan/expansion bottle/water pump), suspension (worn bushes, steering wobble). There are reports of the 2.9 diesel ingesting the swirl flaps from the manifold and destroying the engine but, like the Honda manifold issue, not that common. Turbos can go after a while and autoboxes average about 150k miles life.
Main issue with the Honda is that the paint quality is poor and any example with a few miles will have stone chips, scuffs and scratches. No matter how careful you are with them they pick them up easily.
On average, the BMW will cost more to run, but if you prefer the drive then probably not by a deal breaker amount. Pricing on the BMW is very spec dependent - look for leather and a few choice options. Also look for Xenons as the standard headlights are not fit for purpose IMO even on the facelift examples.
|
Main issue with the Honda is that the paint quality is poor and any example with a few miles will have stone chips, scuffs and scratches. No matter how careful you are with them they pick them up easily.
Mine hasn't a mark on it and I have done thousands of miles on motorways. Paintwork is pristine, and I bought it new in March 2004.
|
|
|
|