Last post on Nov 30, 2009 at 5:29 PM
You are in the BMW 3-Series
What is this discussion about?
BMW 3 Series, Diesel, Sedan, Wagon
2009 BMW 335d Full Test - Bottom Line: A superb execution of clean diesel power wrapped in the proven skin of the 3 Series.(more)
Jan 27, 2009 (2:52 pm)
"Not that it's entirely necessary, but when you're window-shopping cars those figures matter. "
When window shopping while sitting on an easy chair, via car magazines, yes.
When it comes time to sign the dotted line on a new car, I or anyone else that I know never make a decision based on test numbers or raw specs. I doubt that many people out there actually will buy a car simply because it has a 0-60 0.5 second faster than a competitor, or has a slightly higher rated hp or torque figure. Making a decision is a lot more wholistic. I've known many a car enthusiast that picked a car because it looked nicer, or their mother-in-law liked it better, over a competitor that had slightly better test numbers or specs. Which makes it a bit overblown when car publications make too much of the figures.
Jan 27, 2009 (8:03 pm)
You're wrong. We're not talking magazine tests here, because the 3.0 TDI won't even be tested against the 335d.
Its not even in the same category, and I wish it was. I'd much rather have an S4-class diesel, and I'm perfectly justified in saying that.
When you're talking a a 50hp and 80tq difference between the Audi and BMW diesels, you're talking 2 entirely different classes of car. That's written on the wall.
I would take an S4 over a 335i, regardless of the minor differences in performance between 2 cars in the same class. But if there were no S4, I wouldn't drop down to the A4 3.0 FSI.
Hell yes that big of a performance difference matters. I don't have to go test-drive the A4 3.0 FSI to know its going to feel slower than a 335i on most days.
If there were no Audi in the class of the 335i, and I wanted something in that class, I pick the 335i. Simple.
So it is with the 335d. There is no Audi in its class in the US.
The early diesel enthusiasts will not be picking their car of choice because it comes in blue.
#37 of 44 Re: [bigmclargehuge]
Feb 06, 2009 (10:46 am)
I had a 524TD in 1986 that got 42 MPG on the highway and did 0-60 in 11 secs !!!
WOW - the 335TD is such an improvement!!!! And that torque!!!!! WOW - again. It has to feel almost like a turbine or jet when accelerating with that torque from such low rpms.
I will have to try one. For a highway cruiser the 524TD was awesome - 600 mile cruising range
#38 of 44 Re: [hondalvr1]
Feb 06, 2009 (10:58 am)
For a highway cruiser the 524TD was awesome - 600 mile cruising range
I would love that. With my gas guzzling Sequoia you have to start thinking about gas at 350 miles. And the BMW X5 diesel just blows that Toyota gas hog off the road. Not even close to the same acceleration. That is what 110 more ft lbs of torque will do for you. Not to mention it should easily get double the mileage out on the road. Wish I could justify trading in a 1.5 year old vehicle.
Feb 13, 2009 (11:24 am)
And from the article:
Fuel cost is a wash. In this case, less fuel consumption cancels the price premium of diesel fuel
Of course, that changes a lot depending on where you are. First, I'm not sure that the math even makes sense with national averages, but ignoring that. I just got back from a trip to San Diego, and at least over there, diesel was the same price as mid-grade unleaded. I'm pretty sure that most BMWs take premium, no?
Then again, what are the odds that folk in CA would be interested in a high-mpg BMW that still gets 0-60 in around 5-1/2 seconds?
Feb 13, 2009 (2:37 pm)
Times are indeed a'changin - again - as far as fuel costs go.
Diesel's rightful place is really not that different from petrol. If fuel prices stabilize, this is about what we should see for months if not years... with a capital IF.
Right now, owning a diesel vehicle can be quite favorable cost-wise.
But I still contend that the #1 reason to pay the $700-2000 premium for a car, or $5000-7000 for a truck powered by diesel...
Love the feel of more torque than you can extract with your right foot without breaking loose your tire(s) and/or reversing the rotation of the earth.
#41 of 44 Re: [bigmclargehuge]
Feb 13, 2009 (7:40 pm)
Agree. Fuel savings really aren't the issue. If you can afford the wretched thing in the first place, it's really about the driving experience. I just don't find the gasoline 3 series with automatic very satisfying -- too much hunting for gear and never really settling down, but the diesel produces a strangely teutonic take on the thump of Detroit cubic inches married to a modern chassis. It's truly different.
#42 of 44 Re: 335d < 335i [jmaroun]
Aug 25, 2009 (4:05 pm)
I just purchased the 335d after driving both it and the 335i at several dealerships over a few weeks. I loved both cars, handling and performance were close, ride was terrific, but ended up going with the diesel because of the torque, especially at passing speeds. As for the fuel cost, it seems that most people are forgetting that the 335i requires premium, which right now in my location is about 30 cents more per gallon than diesel. I'm averaging 30 mpg with my foot in it all the time, which tells me that the advantage over the 335i is more than people realize. Plus I'm enjoying not stopping for fuel as often with the incredible range of the diesel. So I'm pretty happy with my d model, but to each his own!
#43 of 44 Re: 335d < 335i [bncprf]
Aug 25, 2009 (5:42 pm)
Thanks for the report.
#44 of 44 Re: Umm... [fedlawman]
Nov 30, 2009 (5:29 pm)
I think a 335d is "sportier" than an auto tranny 335i. When I drove both back to back some time ago, I was underwhelmed by the 335i's low to mid-range torque, but the 335d had a thumping urge to go and run.