[squeezebm]

Bloodt i's

[rjs]

Originally Posted by squeezebm

Bloodt i's

All hail the i, international engine of the year!

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?p=953888

[NFS]

Originally Posted by rjs

All hail the i, international engine of the year!

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?p=953888

The 'i's have it

[rjs]

Originally Posted by needforspeed

The 'i's have it

Yup

Not only is it International Engine of the Year, it's also Best New Engine of the Year and Best Engine: 2.5-litre to 3-litre !

[gobo335i]

love the wheels.

[squeezebm]

Originally Posted by needforspeed

The 'i's have it

Where's all my D buddies when i need them !!!!!!

Respect is due for the i
but still not as good as the D

[silverbmwz3]

Right here. Read the Autocar review yesterday and the guy there is raving about the 335d saying that in real world situations he can't imagine it being any slower than 335i and he found both the engine and the transmission amazing. He loved it.

[red355]

Originally Posted by gobo335i

love the wheels.

yep +1

[NFS]

Originally Posted by silverbmwz3

Right here. Read the Autocar review yesterday and the guy there is raving about the 335d saying that in real world situations he can't imagine it being any slower than 335i and he found both the engine and the transmission amazing. He loved it.

I sense some insecurity amongst the oil burners - a need to prove that derv is the way forward ... perhaps this hides a deeply buried and closet desire for a proper high revving petrol engine ... maybe you are all petrol heads in denial ....





... or maybe not

[squeezebm]

Originally Posted by silverbmwz3

Right here. Read the Autocar review yesterday and the guy there is raving about the 335d saying that in real world situations he can't imagine it being any slower than 335i and he found both the engine and the transmission amazing. He loved it.

I knew there were good guys on here somewhere

[- Paul -]

I've got a question? Why is the 2.0l D faster than the i but the 335i is faster than the D??

[mjh93sa]

Originally Posted by 1stnewcar

I've got a question? Why is the 2.0l D faster than the i but the 335i is faster than the D??

Turbos.

The 2.0D being force fed the air can produce more grunt than the N/A 2.0i. Whereas the 35s are both being force fed and by balancing the amount of turbo charging they come out being rather similar in peformance.

As for insecurity and needing to prove that diesels are the way forward.... I think that deep down we all realise that they are the best choice when looked at in the cold light of day unless you are doing low mileage or have deeper pockets and can have a big capacity petrol.

Diesel gives you more range, lower fuel consumption, more low down torque and flexibility without having to rev the nuts off it. It's the sensible hooligans choice. But they cost more, the fuel costs more and they don't sound quite as good when thrashing them. Therefore they're not the choice for everyone.

If money was no option we'd probably all be driving a big capacity petrol engined car with a huge fuel tank and maybe even a light pressure turbo for more puch low down.

[NFS]

Originally Posted by mjh93sa

Turbos.

The 2.0D being force fed the air can produce more grunt than the N/A 2.0i. Whereas the 35s are both being force fed and by balancing the amount of turbo charging they come out being rather similar in peformance.

I don't think that's entirely the reason.

The more relevant issue is the state of tune of the engine. The 320d needs a turbo to produce any decent level of power.

It's engine is pretty much the most powerful 2.0l diesel engine available today (only the latest leon TDI has more poke).

Diesels generally have more torque than similarly sized petrol engines, but the 320d also has more HP than the 320i.

The 320i's 2.0 litre engine generates 150 hp, so it's hardly the most powerful of it's type (for instance the engine in the civic type R generates 198hp).

So the 320i is slower because it's engine is simply not as powerful.

In contrast the 335i does actually generate more HP than the 335d. However, there is so little in it I am not sure either car is definitively faster.

Originally Posted by mjh93sa

As for insecurity and needing to prove that diesels are the way forward.... I think that deep down we all realise that they are the best choice when looked at in the cold light of day unless you are doing low mileage or have deeper pockets and can have a big capacity petrol.

Diesel gives you more range, lower fuel consumption, more low down torque and flexibility without having to rev the nuts off it. It's the sensible hooligans choice. But they cost more, the fuel costs more and they don't sound quite as good when thrashing them. Therefore they're not the choice for everyone.

If money was no option we'd probably all be driving a big capacity petrol engined car with a huge fuel tank and maybe even a light pressure turbo for more puch low down.

Diesel is the sensible choice that's clear enough. What I was pointing out is that many diesel drivers seem to feel the need to defend their choice, which is odd given that it is clearly quite a smart one.

[mjh93sa]

Originally Posted by needforspeed

I don't think that's entirely the reason.

The more relevant issue is the state of tune of the engine. The 320d needs a turbo to produce any decent level of power.

It's engine is pretty much the most powerful 2.0l diesel engine available today (only the latest leon TDI has more poke).

Diesels generally have more torque than similarly sized petrol engines, but the 320d also has more HP than the 320i.

The 320i's 2.0 litre engine generates 150 hp, so it's hardly the most powerful of it's type (for instance the engine in the civic type R generates 198hp).

So the 320i is slower because it's engine is simply not as powerful.

True, The tuning of the 320i will be for more refined drivability than the Civic-R and so is most likely giving up power for torque and so flexibility. Through engine tuning alone they could make the 320i as fast as the 320d, but it would be a rev happy engine and be at the expense of flexibility and maybe even durability. I'll bet a 320i powered by the WTCC engine would be a fair bit faster for a few hundred miles.

If the 320i were to be have a light pressure turbo it could then be as fast as the diesel and maintain the bottom end drivability. Basically the diesel is not fighting fair as the extra air that the turbo crams in allows it to make more power, given the same advantage (or taking the turbo off the diesel) the petrol would again have the performance advantage.

Originally Posted by needforspeed

In contrast the 335i does actually generate more HP than the 335d. However, there is so little in it I am not sure either car is definitively faster.

Exactly, given the same set of rules the engines produce similar results on tarmac, with the petrol perhaps holding a very slight performance advantage.

Originally Posted by needforspeed

Diesel is the sensible choice that's clear enough. What I was pointing out is that many diesel drivers seem to feel the need to defend their choice, which is odd given that it is clearly quite a smart one.

Yeah, I think there is still something of a stigma attached to driving a diesel that a lot of people think they have to justify. I never thought I would drive a diesel when I started driving, but the drive and the figures just made too much sense. It'll probably be another generation before the stigma of the tractor engine is properly overturned. We're just ahead of our time for now.

[silverbmwz3]

Originally Posted by needforspeed

Diesel is the sensible choice that's clear enough. What I was pointing out is that many diesel drivers seem to feel the need to defend their choice, which is odd given that it is clearly quite a smart one.

I don't think it would be any different if I said "Isn't BMW's leather lovely", you'd be out in a flash to explain the merits of Alcantara in the same way and don't deny it :-p

It's all just banter I think you are reading too much into it. There's as much 'defense' going on as to the petrol decision as there is of 'd' in a lot of cases, and some of it possibly over-extolling the virtues of petrol given what I saw the 320d could do the other day!

Does this count as being defensive ?

[- Paul -]

[quote=mjh93sa;957718Through engine tuning alone they could make the 320i as fast as the 320d, but it would be a rev happy engine and be at the expense of flexibility and maybe even durability. I'll bet a 320i powered by the WTCC engine would be a fair bit faster for a few hundred miles.

[/quote]

But then you'd tune the 320D and it would blow the 320i (tuned) away. I never thought about the turbos - I'll buy that explanation.

[NFS]

Originally Posted by silverbmwz3

I don't think it would be any different if I said "Isn't BMW's leather lovely", you'd be out in a flash to explain the merits of Alcantara in the same way and don't deny it :-p

It's all just banter I think you are reading too much into it. There's as much 'defense' going on as to the petrol decision as there is of 'd' in a lot of cases, and some of it possibly over-extolling the virtues of petrol given what I saw the 320d could do the other day!

Does this count as being defensive ?

Of course not ... I don't think anyone is being defensive .. it's all banter and it's all in good fun

I'm actually a proponent of BMW's diesel engines - my last few cars having been 320cd, 320cd msport and 530d.

I'm well aware that on the road, unless you are an ace driver they are as quick or quicker than their petrol counterparts.

That said, for me there are still reasons to get a petrol car.

My point was simply that, given the emminent sensibility of the diesel choice, many diesel drivers seem drawn to defend that choice.

I think, as matt pointed out, that the reality is that for many there is still a negative perception of diesel (as seen in hundreds of old episodes of 'top gear' etc) which I think does force diesel owners to constantly explain themselves.

[silverbmwz3]

It's funny but the negative perception has never even occured to me. I live in Milton Keynes, like computers and play the drums so I'm used to stigmas

The main reason I got diesel was that I wouldn't have to wait so long, which is probably a relatively unusual reason for it.... the sensible side of it just sealed the deal

[SoYank]

Originally Posted by mjh93sa

Diesel gives you more range, lower fuel consumption, more low down torque and flexibility without having to rev the nuts off it. It's the sensible hooligans choice. But they cost more, the fuel costs more and they don't sound quite as good when thrashing them. Therefore they're not the choice for everyone.

Seems to me that with more range, lower fuel consumption (synonymous?), the fuel costs are lower. Sure the cost per litre is 1p more but if you can go half again as far on a litre of diesel as on petrol, that additional 1p is pretty much insignificant.

My complaint about diesels is the clatter.

[Dave_3]

Originally Posted by SoYank

My complaint about diesels is the clatter.

Listen to mine :

Not really any "clatter" that I can determine.

I have absolutely NO doubts I picked the car that suits me best. Massive, languid torque, effortless performance and, in real world city driving while using said torque, literally double the economy.

And a somewhat different side to its character in DS mode or with the paddles on the alpine passes (I have other cars for howling, high-revving, cog shifting, tail sliding, old school petrol fun - and open country roads).

Defensive ? Only against the repetitive regurgitation of hopelessly out-dated, thread-bare perceptions - which is a shame. Not one person, after me taking them for a spin, ever babbles that nonsense again. "All to easy" to turn them to the dark side with a 335D The cognoscenti understand....

No crits at all about the 335i. Marvellous car. But I wonder how many will be city bound and commuting 99% of the time, where all that glorious top-end can never be fully exploited legally ? Heart says "OH YES !", but in reality we are sitting close to each other at the next set of lights

D.

[silverbmwz3]

I think he's referring to when you first start them up. That concerned me too but it is only a small part of the journey

[Dave_3]

Originally Posted by silverbmwz3

I think he's referring to when you first start them up. That concerned me too but it is only a small part of the journey

Easy, switch on the radio before starting.

But with the windows closed I don't hear ANY rattle on startup.

I'll video that ... and from the outside. To get a benchmark.

D.