opinions on this 525d please

positivenote

Hi guys,
came across this car in the north and am looking for opinions. It comes with a full service record and direct from bmw, but it has 100k on the clock. Is it an e39 or am i mistaken?
thanks in advance
http://atsearch.autotrader.co.uk/www/cars_popup.jsp?did=20820&pageid=4&originalid=&gid=nogroup&tid=7&start=5&distance=0&adcategory=cars&channel=DEALERPAGE&id=200947346465804

EPM

Yup, E39. I know someone that brought a 525d in from the North and was always sorry they didn't go for the 530d

Seth Brundle

I'd go for a 530d also - much better car!

Marlow

The 100k are no problem.

I brought at 525tds E39 over last year at 126k miles and sold it this year at 170k miles, still spins like a kitten.

If you can get a 530d, I'd always go for that, but that 525d doesn't look bad either.

/M

positivenote

cheers guys, if i can ask an ignorant question as to why the 530d is a 'much better car'?
thanks

galwaytt

positivenote wrote: »

cheers guys, if i can ask an ignorant question as to why the 530d is a 'much better car'?
thanks

....tbh, I don't know that it is. For the majority of people, the differences are small. I know someone who bought one, and if nothing else, € 800 vs €1300 per annum road tax is reason enough for most.

galwaytt

...just spotted: it's a manual. For me, that tells me that car was a rep's car (cheaper than auto, for fleets')

...generally, privately owned cars of that ilk are automatic, and the better for it.

Seth Brundle

Personally, I prefer having a manual E39!

JHMEG

kbannon wrote: »

I'd go for a 530d also - much better car!

So would I... as long as someone else was paying the motor tax!

Seth Brundle

I'm considering an E39 330d.
What with the price of petrol and the consumption that I go through, I reckon the extra €400 tax would be offset by the saving in fuel.

Also, I'll be able to say to any green heads that I am proud to drive a 3.0L car

unkel

The 530d has more poke and at lower revs than the 525d, but the latter is not slow (0-100km/h in less than 9s iirc). And let's not confuse the modern diesel engine in the 525d with the ancient 525tds old skool diesel.

unkel

kbannon wrote: »

I'm considering an E39 330d

Modified motors forum?

E39MSport

OP, take a ell serviced 530d out for a spin. You will be very impressed. There are few recent threads on things to look out for.

Seth Brundle

unkel wrote: »

Modified motors forum?

Aaah, all these feckin BMWs and their fancy numbers - how is someone supposed to know the difference?

JHMEG

kbannon wrote: »

I'm considering an E39 330d.
What with the price of petrol and the consumption that I go through, I reckon the extra €400 tax would be offset by the saving in fuel.

Over what? A 3.0 diesel isn't exactly fuel efficient, and is getting into the pointless end of diesels in cars IMHO.

galwaytt

E39MSport wrote: »

OP, take a ell serviced 530d out for a spin. You will be very impressed. There are few recent threads on things to look out for.

I agree, he will be impressed, fine car. But what's well-serviced got to do with it? Who'd buy one that wasn't ?

Ditto on the 525, btw, drive that too.

E39MSport

galwaytt wrote: »

I agree, he will be impressed, fine car. But what's well-serviced got to do with it? Who'd buy one that wasn't ?

I'd say he won't be so impressed with a car that hasn't been serviced and isn't so fine.

You've got me. I don't know. Who would buy a car that wasn't well serviced ?

Seth Brundle

JHMEG wrote: »

Over what? A 3.0 diesel isn't exactly fuel efficient, and is getting into the pointless end of diesels in cars IMHO.

Over my 523i.
I'm not looking for fuel efficiency, I'm looking for better fuel efficiency over my current car.

edit: Plus I need to replace mine soon.

E39MSport

The manual 530d will do 45 mpg.

JHMEG

I'm sure it will, but officially the figure is less than 40 mpg.

Shires

kbannon wrote: »

Personally, I prefer having a manual E39!

Likewise. Have driven both, own a manual. Many advantages to the manual. Only disadvantage I find is increased difficulty of eating ice cream cones while driving. One to consider.

trabpc

JHMEG wrote: »

Over what? A 3.0 diesel isn't exactly fuel efficient, and is getting into the pointless end of diesels in cars IMHO.

Sorry but based on what facts!!

I have owned a 2002 e39 530d manual for the last 3 years Ive done over 80,000 miles. Currently has 122,000 miles on clock. Other than servicing, the only extra part fitted was a fuel pump. I have never got lower than 45MPG. My old 1.9d volvo never achieved more than 43 MPG. Pointless! don't think so. better to know facts before posting such comments.....

JHMEG

trabpc wrote: »

Sorry but based on what facts!!.

520D is more efficient than a 530D. There's a fact.

Altho I will admit your 530D is awesome. 45mpg minimum out of a 36mpg average car is pretty spectacular.

Marlow

JHMEG wrote: »

520D is more efficient than a 530D. There's a fact.

Altho I will admit your 530D is awesome. 45mpg minimum out of a 36mpg average car is pretty spectacular.

Not sure, where you get the 36 mpg figure from, but even my '97 525tds did around 40 mpg and that's a generation older engine. 33 mpg on a run from Ireland to Denmark of 2000 km, where I was doing speeds of 140 mph in Germany.

So, I gladly believe, that the 530d would do better fuel economy than that. The 520d on the other hand is undermotorised in my opinion and also a 4-cyl. Not a happy medium.

/M

JHMEG

Marlow wrote: »

Not sure, where you get the 36 mpg figure from

I googled for [2002 530d mpg] and got this. 36.2 appears to be BMW's own figure.

Marlow

JHMEG wrote: »

I googled for [2002 530d mpg] and got this. 36.2 appears to be BMW's own figure.

If it's not on BMW's own website, I'd take it with a grain salt. I've seen various figures floating around, but the stated 40-45 mpg here for a 530d sound very reasonable from my experience with the older engine.

And I did 44k miles in mine last year before I traded it, with continous check for how much fuel i used (ie. reset the trip odometer on every full filling).

/M

JHMEG

Marlow wrote: »

If it's not on BMW's own website, I'd take it with a grain salt.

It's not on the website cos it's an old model.

Owners have mixed results (another google result);
http://www.bimmerforums.co.uk/forum/f15/2000-e39-530d-auto-poor-mpg-please-help-t33195/

Marlow

JHMEG wrote: »

It's not on the website cos it's an old model.

Owners have mixed results (another google result);
http://www.bimmerforums.co.uk/forum/f15/2000-e39-530d-auto-poor-mpg-please-help-t33195/

Well, the E60's engine is a slightly upgraded version from the E39 530d, but in principle the same.

BMW states combined 6.4l/100 km for the E60 530d.

That is converted to MPG: approx 37 U.S. MPG and approx 45 UK MPG

Sounds pretty damn precise to me.

Link for E60 engine specifications: http://www.bmw.ie/ie/en/newvehicles/5series/sedan/2007/allfacts/engine/engine_data.html

/M

E39MSport

yup, average 45mpg out of the 530d that I drive. Awesome machine.

niceirishfella

E39MSport wrote: »

yup, average 45mpg out of the 530d that I drive. Awesome machine.

Wow - is it a manual?
The E39 530d auto I had would NEVER give me more than 34mpg.

trabpc

Yep mine will nearly always return 45MPG (Manual). Oficially the 520d on paper should return better MPG but in reality does it? Big car-small engine. Would love to hear 520d owners on this one. Brother In Laws 520d returns 46MPG on average. not too sure of his driving style though!

Have an uncle of mine who drives a Scoda Superb and claimes he is getting 55-60 Mpg. I met him on the road one day and can see how!!! never passes 80KPH. My 530d returns 45MPG at 120KPH Motorway (80% of the time) and city (20%). I would easily achive over 50MPG (well i did this evening on M7 did not go past 80KPH (snow) and trip showed 56 MPG...... would love to see how 530d and 520d fuel consumption compares at 120KPH?

Marlow

trabpc wrote: »

Oficially the 520d on paper hould return better MPG but in reality does it? Big car-small engine.

Also, there's only .5l/100 km difference between a 520d and a 530d. 525d then is half way between them on BMW's official figures.

Anyhow, my point with it beind undermotorized, was exactly, that it being a big car and you can only get the 520d in the E60. The E39's 520d were only made in LHD. The motor will get stressed, fail more often and not live as long as a 525d or 530d with plenty of reserves.

/M

E39MSport

niceirishfella wrote: »

Wow - is it a manual?
The E39 530d auto I had would NEVER give me more than 34mpg.

Yeah, manual. We (OH and me) had one each at one stage. Mine was an auto and gave 32 mpg on the same journey at the same time as the manual gave 45. I got over 50 out of the manual before.

niceirishfella

E39MSport wrote: »

Yeah, manual. We (OH and me) had one each at one stage. Mine was an auto and gave 32 mpg on the same journey at the same time as the manual gave 45. I got over 50 out of the manual before.

right.....gotya.

BlackWizard

Jaysus, the auto boxes really suck in these BMWs. That's such a huge difference in fuel consumption between the automagic and manual labour gearbox.

niceirishfella

They don't suck as a GB, but they do make the powerplant suck more juice thats for sure.
Still, I'd still have the Auto - it's a lovely driving experience and suits the 6 pot.