BMW 3.0 liter diesel: any good?

"GRL" > wrote in message
...
>I read the article. The writer was very excited about the diesel's
>performance and wished it was sold here, in th U.S.

I read the article too. But the perspective was how the diesel had improved
and performed in the light of diesel engines....not compared to more
responsive gasoline engines. I too wish BMW would sell diesels here in the
US, but not because I think they perform better than the gas options we get.

"Huw" > wrote in message
...

> For the same grunt as the latest BMW twin turbo diesel 3.0, in 535 cars,
> you will need a really massive V8. Then the fuel economy advantage of the
> diesel would really stand out.

The "grunt" in a gas engine is very elastic, you get to use it pretty high
on the rpm band while you are in the horsepower zone. Diesels engines don't
give the same elasticity and hence don't provide the same "instant on"
response across the whole rpm range. They are very good down low, but even
within their own upper rpm range, by comparison to gas engines...become a
bit breathless.

You really don't need a massive V8 to replicate the performance of a diesel.
In fact you are going to need much better diesels than they currently sell
to ever reach the performance of a very good gasoline engine.

The best performance points for diesels right now is in everyday commuting
or highway cruising, and in both cases you cannot make the claim that the
diesel is a better performer than the gas equivalent.

Bradburn Fentress wrote:
> "GRL" > wrote in message
> ...
> >A U.S. car book, I think it was Autoweek, tried one in Michigan that
BMW
> >had brought into the U.S. (not sold here - image clash) and the
writer
> >almost wet his pants with excitement about how good it was.
>
> That's not true. The 535d gets good reviews here for the powerplant
in
> comparison to where diesel engines used to be, but less than exciting

> reviews for the performance.

Hunh? This is the fastest diesel passenger car ever produced, by some
margin. Unless 0-60 in 6.0 sec and 100 in 14.5 is somehow "slow".

> I can't think of one review in America in which the writer preferred
BMW's
> new diesels over the "instant on' performance of the petrol engines.
Mostly
> they think it cool that BMW can make diesel engines this good. Not
simply
> engines this good.

Most reviews I read in Bimmer have nothing but praise for the diesels
on the occasion they test them, preferring the relaxed nature to the
slightly frenetic approach to forward motion manifested by the smaller
petrols.

and then you chip it.....

not seen the results on a 535, but my 530D went from 193 bhp
to 245 bhp with 550 NM torque. with approx 42 mpg (i.e. better than stock) with
my style of driving..... I would expect the 535 to be around 275 bhp and 600 NM
torque...

Chipping is pretty popular in the UK - even dealers chip low models to higher
models, to make them more saleable...

Nick

"Bradburn Fentress" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Huw" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> For the same grunt as the latest BMW twin turbo diesel 3.0, in 535 cars,
>> you will need a really massive V8. Then the fuel economy advantage of the
>> diesel would really stand out.
>
> The "grunt" in a gas engine is very elastic, you get to use it pretty high
> on the rpm band while you are in the horsepower zone. Diesels engines
> don't give the same elasticity and hence don't provide the same "instant
> on" response across the whole rpm range. They are very good down low, but
> even within their own upper rpm range, by comparison to gas
> engines...become a bit breathless.
>
> You really don't need a massive V8 to replicate the performance of a
> diesel. In fact you are going to need much better diesels than they
> currently sell to ever reach the performance of a very good gasoline
> engine.
>
> The best performance points for diesels right now is in everyday commuting
> or highway cruising, and in both cases you cannot make the claim that the
> diesel is a better performer than the gas equivalent.
>

I have owned both Jaguar V8 and BMW diesel. Frankly I prefer the diesel and
the performance is similar. Both fast.
How many modern diesels have you run?

Huw

nick smith wrote:

> not seen the results on a 535, but my 530D went from 193 bhp
> to 245 bhp with 550 NM torque. with approx 42 mpg (i.e. better than
stock) with
> my style of driving..... I would expect the 535 to be around 275 bhp
and 600 NM
> torque...

272 bhp and 560Nm, as it happens. BMW specifies an uprated crankshaft
to handle this sort of grunt; you may want to consider that your E39
530d has gone from 302 lb-ft to around 450 lb-ft with a standard crank.
In fact BMW upgraded the crank for the newer E60/E65 3.0 diesel with
369 lb-ft, and then again for the twin-turbo. Your bearing and crank
pin lifetimes will hereafter be measured in engine operation hours, not
years .

> Chipping is pretty popular in the UK - even dealers chip low models
to higher
> models, to make them more saleable...

Chipped cars are very popular with the people who chip them, yes.
After that, who f****** cares? That the dealers do it to make a car
more saleable pretty much answers that question .

"Huw" > wrote in message
...

> I have owned both Jaguar V8 and BMW diesel.

> believe me, I don't discount your opinion, I simply don't share it.

> Frankly I prefer the diesel and the performance is similar. Both fast.

Not in my experience.

> How many modern diesels have you run?

I have driven every BMW diesel engine in available in Germany, and have yet
to find any of them with similar performance to the equivalent gas engine.
Not as much fun either, though they are on the right track with the 535d.

"Andrew Thomas" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Bradburn Fentress wrote:
>> "GRL" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >A U.S. car book, I think it was Autoweek, tried one in Michigan that
> BMW
>> >had brought into the U.S. (not sold here - image clash) and the
> writer
>> >almost wet his pants with excitement about how good it was.
>>
>> That's not true. The 535d gets good reviews here for the powerplant
> in
>> comparison to where diesel engines used to be, but less than exciting
>
>> reviews for the performance.
>
> Hunh? This is the fastest diesel passenger car ever produced, by some
> margin. Unless 0-60 in 6.0 sec and 100 in 14.5 is somehow "slow".

Please don't try to attribute comments to me that I didn't make. The simple
fact is that you can , and I do, go faster with better responsiveness with a
petrol BMW. I'm sorry if that offends you, or if you haven't had the
opportunity to drive one, but it is fact.

And frankly, you support my comment by exclaiming it is the fastest "diesel"
passenger car. The review was written from that same perspective.

>> I can't think of one review in America in which the writer preferred
> BMW's
>> new diesels over the "instant on' performance of the petrol engines.
> Mostly
>> they think it cool that BMW can make diesel engines this good. Not
> simply
>> engines this good.
>
> Most reviews I read in Bimmer have nothing but praise for the diesels
> on the occasion they test them, preferring the relaxed nature to the
> slightly frenetic approach to forward motion manifested by the smaller
> petrols.

That's not true either. The one diesel they liked was the 535d, but I don't
remember anyone saying it was a more enjoyable, performance car than the
equivalent gas powered model. I remember them saying it was head and
shoulders above other recent diesel releases.

But hey, it is obvious just by reading this ng that some people really like
diesels. I just think that shouldn't get in the way of facts about
performance and acceleration. If fuel efficiency was my main goal I would
likely drive a lower displacement BMW, or in the case of some of our
European friends here, a diesel.

"nick smith" > wrote in message
...
> and then you chip it.....
>
> not seen the results on a 535, but my 530D went from 193 bhp
> to 245 bhp with 550 NM torque. with approx 42 mpg (i.e. better than stock)
> with
> my style of driving..... I would expect the 535 to be around 275 bhp and
> 600 NM
> torque...
>
> Chipping is pretty popular in the UK - even dealers chip low models to
> higher
> models, to make them more saleable...

Chipping is very popular in the US too. We essentially get diesels only in
pickup trucks, but there are a number of options to every make of diesel
engine in our trucks. It's plug and play, but I don't know if I buy into
most of the power claims without seeing supporting testing evidence. They
rev higher, they pull a little longer, in some cases they up psi, but the
wide eye claims of **dramatic power** increases across the rpm band are
suspect.

Some Americans still think a K&N filter improves horsepower and mileage. And
they've sold a million of them under that pretense.

"Bradburn Fentress" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Huw" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> I have owned both Jaguar V8 and BMW diesel.
>
>> believe me, I don't discount your opinion, I simply don't share it.
>
>> Frankly I prefer the diesel and the performance is similar. Both fast.
>
> Not in my experience.
>
>> How many modern diesels have you run?
>
> I have driven every BMW diesel engine in available in Germany, and have
> yet to find any of them with similar performance to the equivalent gas
> engine. Not as much fun either, though they are on the right track with
> the 535d.
>

Well I can tell you that most people prefer the 3.0 diesel to the 3.0 petrol
in the UK and it is not to do with economy because diesel is more expensive
than petrol fuel. The high power twin turbo engine will virtually wipe out
sales of V8 petrol BMW engines here.
Each to his own I suppose.

Huw