I have mentioned this in the New BMW turbo petrol engines thread though it perhaps warrants a thread of its own.
The new 2011 model 525d has dropped the 3.0ltr six for a 218bhp version of the 2.0d, I am assuming it is twin turbo as per the 123d.
0-60 in 7 secs, 149mph, 132g/km and a combined consumption of 56.5 mpg, incredible for a large automatic saloon.
|
>> . . . I am assuming it is twin turbo as per the 123d.
>>
Correct (source: BMW official website).
An extremely efficient engine. Even I, as someone who supports the opposition, have no doubt that BMW are premier engine makers right now.
A 525d would make a cracking company car. A 325d probably even better. (Second car, maybe, only needed for commuting etc.)
|
|
Will it be offered with a manual transmission?
|
>> Will it be offered with a manual transmission?
>>
It is though it offers less mpg and higher CO2 albeit with a higher 151mph top speed.
|
>>
A 325d probably even better. >>
The 325d is still the six, I guess the new 3 is on the way and that is when the 325d will get this engine.
|
Just when Jaguar thought they had the 520d cracked with the 188bhp 2.2d XF then BMW take it on another step.
|
>> Just when Jaguar thought they had the 520d cracked with the 188bhp 2.2d XF then
>> BMW take it on another step.
Interestingly though, Autocar tested the 2.2d XF and found it both faster and more economical under test conditions than the latest 520d. It just shows what nonsense the "official" CO2 figures are, especially when the different ratings could amount to as much as a £700 a year BiK tax advantage for the BMW.
I wonder how close this new 525d will get to its claimed mpg in real world driving. I've read many reports now that say the 520d doesn't get anything like its combined figure in the real world.
Last edited by: DP on Tue 26 Jul 11 at 09:47
|
>> Interestingly though, Autocar tested the 2.2d XF and found it both faster and more economical under test conditions than the latest 520d. It just shows what nonsense the "official" CO2 figures are, especially when the different ratings could amount to as much as a £700 a year BiK tax advantage for the BMW.
>>
I read that test in the BMW dealer while waiting for my 123d to be serviced yesterday, the performance was very similar despite the Jag having, on paper, a lot more torque. The 525d has more power and similar torque to the 2.2 XF and with 0-60 one second faster than the XF (and 520d) offers a much lower CO2 than the XF.
>> I wonder how close this new 525d will get to its claimed 56 mpg in real world driving.>>
Good point, my 123d is 55.something mpg combined though is averaging around 49 mpg whereas my old Mondeo averaged close to its 47.something mpg combined figure over 140k miles.
Last edited by: Cheddar on Tue 26 Jul 11 at 09:55
|
>> Good point, my 123d is 55.something mpg combined though is averaging around 49 mpg whereas
>> my old Mondeo averaged close to its 47.something mpg combined figure over 140k miles.
How would you compare your 123d engine to the Focus ST engine? A guy with a 123d on another forum was following a turbo Impreza at speed, and said the guy couldn't shake him off, although we'll never know the truth.
|
|
I bet the same guy gets 70mpg while driving with a lead right foot too.
|
>> a 123d on another forum was following a turbo Impreza at speed, and said the
>> guy couldn't shake him off, although we'll never know the truth.
>>
If that's the case the geezer in the Scoob was only driving normally, not many Beemers i've been in can enter a roundabout at 50 and leave it at 80...10 minutes in one of those driven by someone competent left me feeling decidedly unwell for some time apart from the terrifying experience, mind you that's running 300hp and weighs in at just a ton.
In a straight line a good car can keep up, my MB will, just and only because the auto box changes instantly, but once the roads gets twisty or wet...
|
>> If that's the case the geezer in the Scoob was only driving normally, not many
>> Beemers i've been in can enter a roundabout at 50 and leave it at 80
Totally agree GB, armchair bragging no doubt. Beemers are fast, but when it comes to the twisties, a combination of only being rear wheel drive and having plenty of weight counts against them - the point is that they are fun around the corners, but not the fastest.
I've been a passenger in a 300bhp Mitsubishi Evo, and the things that car could do around roundabouts and bends just had me laughing like a loony.
|
>> Totally agree GB, armchair bragging no doubt. Beemers are fast, but when it comes to
>> the twisties, a combination of only being rear wheel drive and having plenty of weight
>> counts against them - the point is that they are fun around the corners, but
>> not the fastest.>>
No doubt a 300bhp Impreza would be faster than a 204bhp 1 Series though the 1 Series is not heavy and the 123d on 245 section rears grips like anything, at least in the dry.
|
>> How would you compare your 123d engine to the Focus ST engine?>>
Being a petrol engine ST is more refined at idle and revs smoothly though otherwise the 123d is quieter, the ST being set up to be a little aural. The ST pulls like a decent 2.0 TD from 1000rpm, is very strong from 2000rpm, and really flies from 4000, by comparison the 123d is stronger at low revs and just builds relentlessly with no noticable step to around 4800.
I guess the ST is faster keeping it above 4000 rpm though the 123d is amazingly quick, say taking 4th gear pulling out of a slip road onto a dual carriageway and you can see three figures in no time, surprisingly quick even when used to the ST, I guess because it does it with no noise, no drama.
|
>> you can see three figures in no time
km/h of course
|
In my old Forester one could join any motorway at 100mph+ no matter how short/uphill the sliproad was.
Probably the biggest reason I got rid of it - too addictive to use the boost and I quite enjoy having a licence....
EDIT: Kph *ahem*
Last edited by: Lygonos on Thu 28 Jul 11 at 00:47
|
>> I guess the ST is faster keeping it above 4000 rpm though the 123d is
>> amazingly quick, say taking 4th gear pulling out of a slip road onto a dual
>> carriageway and you can see three figures in no time, surprisingly quick even when used
>> to the ST, I guess because it does it with no noise, no drama.
And no fuel penalty, compared to the ST. Still love the turbo five cylinder though.
|
I never saw the point of the 6-cyl 325d - same (or worse) emissions and economy than the post-2008 330d with compromised performance.
I miss my 330d though
Last edited by: idle_chatterer on Tue 26 Jul 11 at 09:46
|
>>
>> A 525d would make a cracking company car. A 325d probably even better. (Second car,
>> maybe, only needed for commuting etc.)
>>
I suspect this 525d will be my next company car, if I ever have another car that is ....
|
Yeah, but it's a BMW quoted 56.5 mpg. Real life: low 40s, much less if you use the 218 horses. :-)
At least my VW Passat used to be spot-on the book figure. It's a massive detuned con for cheap road and company car tax.
|
>> At least my VW Passat used to be spot-on the book figure. It's a massive
>> detuned con for cheap road and company car tax.
The VAG PD engine is about the only design that seems to genuinely achieve its book figure, or close to without needing to be consciously driven for economy. Our Golf gives 52 average over a tankful, against a combined figure of 52.3, and only twice has it ever given less than 50, both times never leaving an urban environment over the entire tankful. Even then, we got 47.
I find this figure fiddling quite irritating, especially when the CO2 figure is probably the key factor in determining the success of a product in the fleet market, and with CO2 based VED not going away, an increasingly important factor in the private market, too.
It irritates me that Jaguar, with the XF 2.2d has built a car that is more economical in real life (and therefore has lower CO2 emissions) than the 520d, but which is penalised for being the opposite. Clearly BMW understands the EU test process better than Jaguar. Correcting this must surely be Jaguar's focus from this point forward.
|
>> The VAG PD engine is about the only design that seems to genuinely achieve its
>> book figure, or close to without needing to be consciously driven for economy.
Its really funny, The VW PD engine (I have had three) is the only one where I have never managed to get the book figure, as much as by 5mpg down.
Its not me, I hit the published numbers for the Renault DCi and the current Lancer.
|
>> The VAG PD engine is about the only design that seems to genuinely achieve its
>> book figure, or close to without needing to be consciously driven for economy.
Its really funny, The VW PD engine (I have had three) is the only one where I have never managed to get the book figure, as much as by 5mpg down.
Its not me, I hit the published numbers for the Renault DCi and the current Lancer
Ditto - used to get great economy in the Scenic dci but the Altea has been a huge let down and one of the reasons I would consider changing it. I struggle to get 42 with about town and day to day commuting. I once tested it at 56mph for a 20 mile stretch of the M8 and only got it up to 47mpg for that stretch.
On another forum, members claim to be able to get up to 50mpg with same car and engine as mine and with similar sounding journeys.
My dad has a 1.6hdi Picasso, mostly used for local journeys and his average mpg, as he proudly tells me, is 57.5mpg.
|
>>
Jaguar, with the XF 2.2d has built a car that is more economical in real life (and therefore has lower CO2 emissions) than the 520d,
>>
I am not sure that is the case in real life conditions, Autocar's test is not typical.
Generally the lower the Co2 the more economical the car is, in practice as well as in theory, as I say my 123d has not achieved the combined figure yet though that is probably down to enthusiastic driving and switching off the stop-start system.
|
A while ago I read an article about testing of CO2 emissions. The car chosen I think was a Golf 1.4TS. They took it to the testing centre (Thatcham's?) and tried their best to repeat the test. Their figure was a fair bit higher than the official one. Then the professional had a go and bettered it but still did not equal the official figure.
One does wonder how the official figures for emissions can be so low at times.
|
>> One does wonder how the official figures for emissions can be so low at times.
>>
The manufacturer remaps the engine specifically for the test.
|
>> One does wonder how the official figures for emissions can be so low at times.
>>
>>> The manufacturer remaps the engine specifically for the test.
I did not think they were allowed to do that as they had to test a production car?
|
>>
>> The VAG PD engine is about the only design that seems to genuinely achieve its
>> book figure, or close to without needing to be consciously driven for economy.
I can't agree, my 170PD Audi struggled to deliver 18% less than its claimed mpg figure - something I've never experienced in any other car. By comparison my 330d delivered 90% of its claimed average mpg without my trying and often exceeded the claimed mpg. Similarly our Civic 2.2 CTDi always managed its claimed average.
The PD was gruff, peaky and smelly to boot. Horrible engines and I still don't have confidence that any VAG diesel will deliver its claimed economy.
Last edited by: idle_chatterer on Wed 27 Jul 11 at 09:47
|
|
the 170 PD engine was always an engine pushed too far. It was much better in its lower HP guises.
|
>> I still don't have confidence that any VAG diesel will deliver its claimed economy.
I've no idea what the claimed figures are, but the '60' reg Golf 1.6 TDi CR I'm currently driving showed 53mpg this morning, on a 100% urban run of 14 miles. That's pretty darned good in my book. Lovely quiet engine too, smooth and refined. Very impressed.
It's a 66kW model - is that 90 or 105PS? If it's 90 I'm really staggered with the performance too, very nippy and a really good rev range. Nice motor. The wife's started looking them up in autotrader, it's a world apart from her '02' reg 1.9TDi 100......
Last edited by: Alanović on Wed 27 Jul 11 at 09:53
|
>> The PD was gruff, peaky and smelly to boot. Horrible engines and I still don't
>> have confidence that any VAG diesel will deliver its claimed economy.
Most people agree the 170PS 2.0 was probably the worst incarnation of the VW PD, followed closely by the 150PS version of the 1.9. Both engines pushed way beyond their optimum level of tune to appease the marketeers, and both suffering reliability and durability issues that simply do not affect the lower powered versions.
My comments relate to the 130 PS version of the 1.9 which, noise levels aside, is a wonderful engine. Virtually no turbo lag, very responsive to the throttle, achieves bang on its claimed combined economy whatever bodyshell it is installed in, and feels far more powerful in daily driving than its 130 PS rated output. I have driven various common rail units of similar output, and while they wipe the floor with the PD for refinement, none can match its sheer clout from seemingly impossibly low revs, and the seemingly unstoppable shove through the midrange.
Interestingly, a colleague has a Civic 2.2CDTi, and he is struggling to get more than 41 mpg out of it, against a claimed 53.3.
|
DP - fair point, shouldn't tar them all with the same brush, I have to admit to having experience of both the 115PS 1.9PD and the 130PS version in a Golf IV and an A4 B6 respectively, both were very drivable and economical and not too gruff, I suspect it was the 2.0 16V PD which was somehow peakier, gruffer and less economical - particularly in 170PS form, a colleague who had the 140PS CVT found it much thirstier than his previous 130PS 1.9PD auto too.
I've had the Honda 2.2 CDTi in both the Civic and Accord and found it to be economical, refined and very drivable in both so it shows that there can be huge variance between examples I guess, in fact wasn't there a similar recent thread about the PSA/Ford 1.6D recently ?
Back to BMW, I sincerely hope these high output 4 cylinder engines work as they are undoubtedly the future of my motoring, my experience of the 6 cylinder 330d is that BMW make truly great engines.
Last edited by: idle_chatterer on Thu 28 Jul 11 at 02:40
|
I have the current 316D which is a 2l diesel. I get 56 to 59 mpg when I drive on "extra urban" which is single carriageway A roads, dual carriageway, motorway (m25) and town driving.
If I am careful I get 62. (For example, south Kent coast to Birmingham at 9PM at a steady 70.
Just around town I get 48.
A colleagues has the 320 which has even better MPG but he lives much nearer to the motorways then I do.
Last edited by: zippy on Tue 26 Jul 11 at 11:17
|
Those must be computer figures, Zippy - I have never done 500 urban miles at a stretch so I've no idea what our cars return in those conditions. Our Euro IV Toyota's computer often shows more than 50 mpg but fill-to-fill calculations (inevitably over 400+ miles of mixed use) seldom reach the Combined 44 mpg.
I would love to try one of the latest BMW engines for a week, though. Even if it falls short of the paper figure I'd like to see how it does in my kind of mixed use - mostly congested motorway these days.
|
Yaris diesel figures (MK1) are 55urban, 68 extra. 62 overall.
I average 61.. mainly urban.. but that's after changing driving style--- I used to average 57 on the same mix.
WInter of course is worse and summer better.
|
>>>Those must be computer figures, Zippy
They are, BUT, I do brim to brim and the computer is never more than two mpg out and often less! It has set outputs for example 58.8 or 63.3 or 57.6 never figures in between.
I have once got over 800 miles from it but more usually 750 is before I refuel and do the calculations.
I am dreading changing it as it is the most economical car that I have ever had and I understand that BMWs are not on our company car list any more!
Last edited by: zippy on Wed 27 Jul 11 at 18:38
|
>> I have the current 316D which is a 2l diesel. I get 56 to 59
>> mpg when I drive on "extra urban" which is single carriageway A roads, dual carriageway,
>> motorway (m25) and town driving.
>>
>> If I am careful I get 62. (For example, south Kent coast to Birmingham at
>> 9PM at a steady 70.
>>
>> Just around town I get 48.
>>
>> A colleagues has the 320 which has even better MPG but he lives much nearer
>> to the motorways then I do.
>>
Yes, but you have no POWWWWWWEEERRRRR!!!!
|
>>>>>Yes, but you have no POWWWWWWEEERRRRR!!!!
Tis no slouch, but a lot of gear changes are needed!
|
New BMW turbo diesel engine - Londoner
