Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans BMW 5-Series BMW 530i vs. Mercedes CLK 350
18 messages, Last post on Nov 02, 2007 at 4:26 AM
You are in the BMW 5-Series Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens
|
|
|---|---|
Here I have the cash saved up and BMW comes out with their twin turbos that seems to make the V8 a lesser choice. I never cared for the 3er too much, felt it was too small. Yet this new 335i convertible is really impressive! You think one should take a wait-and-see approach on this twin turbo? You guys seem to have all the experience and knowledge... of the three, which one do you think would be the better buy to hold on to until it rots off the frame? Forget about passengers, a need for more room and etc. and just give me the facts on which model would most likely be the best for the long-haul.
|
|
|
Replying to: tx_buzzard (Nov 01, 2007 1:16 pm) I would have given the "long haul" award to the previous 530i 6-speed. Nothing too complex about the engine, drive train or transmission. From what I can tell, the 8 cylinder engines are durable, but become considerably more expensive to maintain after 80-100k miles. The jury is still out on the twin turbo 6. Great power, but will those turbos last as long as the engine? But regardless of whether you go for the 6 or 8 cylinder, I'd forget the "x" and I'd stick with a manual transmission. If you really want the car to last 12-15+ years, as I know the old 525's and 528's were capable of, no use in putting extra mechanical or electronic complexity into the car where it's not needed.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: habitat1 (Nov 01, 2007 1:34 pm)  Thanks for your response. 
|
|
|
Replying to: tx_buzzard (Nov 01, 2007 1:49 pm) There has been a lot of debate on that subject over on the 3 series boards, as well as the "ultimate AWD sport sedan" board. Essentially, you have one group that advocates the benefits of AWD, without considering the disadvantages. And another (which I belong to) that would claim those disadvantages need to be considered. I strongly suggest you drive all the variants of the 5 series or other cars you are considering, before ever concluding that BMW's "x" system improves handling in the twists and turns. That's certainly the opposite of my conclusion. The AWD version gains 200+ lbs, disrpupts the otherwise near perfect 50/50 weight balance, and, in "sport package" form, has a detuned suspension and tire setup, compared to the RWD models. IMO, the RWD 3/5 series are more nimble, quicker and more fun to drive on any dry surface. And it doesn't take much discipline to tone down my driveing in rain to make the RWD very safe. In addition, the AWD versions are 7-10%+ less fuel efficient in the real world, and have more moving parts to maintain and break. You think getting the turbos worked on or replaced might be a little less of a hassel vs. maintaining the V8 after 100K? Don't know - you might want to ask a couple of BMW service managers for their opinions. If the turbos do need to be replaced, I would expect that to be a very expensive job. I remember a business associate that had an old turbo Volvo and when the turbo went, it was a job that cost more than the car was worth at the time ($3,500) and he handed it to Salvation Army. Of course, it may be that the BMW twin turbos are designed with a life expectancy that is considerably longer, and not an issue.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: habitat1 (Nov 02, 2007 3:39 am) Your input has been helpful... thanks again. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Sedans BMW 5-Series BMW 530i vs. Mercedes CLK 350
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2011 BMW 5 Series
2009 Mercedes-Benz CLK-Class
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
