BMW 520i

The Bishop Basher

I'm a long time Merc driver but i'm thinking of changing to BMW due to the quality issues with 04 & 05 E class Mercs. I'm currently driving the E 240 2.6 V6.

I'm on the verge of buying a 520i 2.2L petrol. I was looking for a 2.5l but this car ticks all the boxes specs wise.

Just wondering, are they a little underpowered or is it quick enough ?

Are there problems I should be looking out for ?

It's a 04 with only 40k on the clock.

Cheers.

mickdw

I would have serious problems with that 40k reading on the clock unless it can be seriously backed up

losthorizon

One thing with BMWs is that they are murder to drive when it snows.

cullen5998

I have a 02 Mtech 2.2 520
Not underpowered, good bit of poke when you put the foot down.
Bit thirsty though.

The Bishop Basher

I agree. I'll be doing full checks on it in as far as I can but the obvious of wear and tear, or lack of woulod back it up. The service book also backs it up.

cullen5998

losthorizon wrote: »

One thing with BMWs is that they are murder to drive when it snows.

I drove mine in the snow and ice with no problems.
Its about how you drive in the snow not the car.
Drive for the conditions.

The Bishop Basher

cullen5998 wrote: »

I have a 02 Mtech 2.2 520
Not underpowered, good bit of poke when you put the foot down.
Bit thirsty though.

When you say thirsty what kind of MPG are you getting?

I'm used to thirsty with the 2.6 but sometimes I think the bigger engines are economical cause they don't have to work as hard.

The Bishop Basher

cullen5998 wrote: »

I drove mine in the snow and ice with no problems.
Its about how you drive in the snow not the car.
Drive for the conditions.

Likewise, I drove the Merc which is also an auto with no problems in the snow. Even made it up to Roundwood when FWD cars couldn't get up the hill.

homer90

losthorizon wrote: »

One thing with BMWs is that they are murder to drive when it snows.

For some maybe, but the other 51 weeks of the year make up for it.

I had no issues over the cold spell.

cullen5998

Swanner wrote: »

When you say thirsty what kind of MPG are you getting?

I'm used to thirsty with the 2.6 but sometimes I think the bigger engines are economical cause they don't have to work as hard.

Longer journeys about 35mpg

Around town is what kills it, only get maybe 15-20mpg

The Bishop Basher

That's ok. It's pretty much what i'm getting now.

Cheers all, I appreciate the comments !!

captainwang

Drove mine no problem in the snow and ice, pulled a Transit van and a Saab 95 out of bother no problem. It ended up being the only car able to leave the house towards the end of the cold spell beating 3 FWD cars. As for power its not lacking at all. Also on motorway driving expect 34-35mpg, city 28-30mpg

captainwang

captainwang wrote: »

, city 28-30mpg

My definition of city driving is barely getting out of 2nd for long with an average speed of less than 10 miles an hour.

PaulKK

losthorizon wrote: »

One thing with BMWs is that they are murder to drive when it snows.

You realise that the OP has a Merc which is RWD aswell?

I had no issues in my BMW in the snow, as others here have said, drive to the conditions.

I'm sick of this crap being spouted around that "BMWs are crap in the snow", by people that don't even own them.



@OP If you are happy with the power in the E240 I would think the 520i should be similar. Only thing is, it will be hard to shift a petrol 5 series in a few years, but since you have a v6 petrol Merc, I'm sure you don't mind this ;-)

Big Nasty

If it was me I would go for a 523 (2.5) as there's feck all difference tax wise and the power to weight ratio is a lot better. Might sell for less down the road but should be cheaper to buy too. A whole lot nicer drive IMO.

x in the city

7 yr old 5 series on 40k miles...

deffo a clocking there alright...is that a dealer?

Eoin

It's not "deffo a clocking"; it works out at 5/6000 miles a year, which is absolutely believable for an urban commuter.

unkel

Eoin wrote: »

It's not "deffo a clocking"; it works out at 5/6000 miles a year, which is absolutely believable for an urban commuter.

+1

If the average mileage is say 11k per year then for everyone doing 17k, there's someone doing just 5k. Had it been a diesel it would have looked far more suspicious. That said, always try and verify the mileage, whatever car you might buy...

The Bishop Basher

MCMLXXV wrote: »

If it was me I would go for a 523 (2.5) as there's feck all difference tax wise and the power to weight ratio is a lot better. Might sell for less down the road but should be cheaper to buy too. A whole lot nicer drive IMO.

I was afraid someone might post that

It's kinda what i'm thinking myself but then again when I think about how much I actually get to use the extra power it's not all that often. Don't know, i'll have to sleep on it.

As for the mileage, I agree that it seems to good to be true but it's that clean inside with no wear and tear that i'm inclined to believe it. The dealer is also offering a years warranty which they're not likely to do on a clocked car. It's one owner and a D reg so it may well have been used for short trips around town and nothing more. If it's a genuine mileage it's to good to pass on regardless of the smaller engine.

Eoin

Eoin wrote: »

It's not "deffo a clocking"; it works out at 5/6000 miles a year, which is absolutely believable for an urban commuter.

X in the city is an expert at spotting clocked cars

The Bishop Basher

Just as a follow up here, I called the garage who sold the car new to the last owner. The mileage is 100% legit.

It will be due the first major service at either 60,000 or 8 years so that has to be factored in.

ei.sdraob

losthorizon wrote: »

One thing with BMWs is that they are murder to drive when it snows.

Thats a bit of generalisation there aint it? there are alot of cars in the bmw range

While all the other cars where sliding about i was sailing past on the ice on me x5

captainwang

RoverJames wrote: »

My definition of city driving is barely getting out of 2nd for long with an average speed of less than 10 miles an hour.

I get 28mpg easily (averaging over 3-4 week period) driving in traffic in Cork City traffic

Daibheid

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Thats a bit of generalisation there aint it? there are alot of cars in the bmw range

While all the other cars where sliding about i was sailing past on the ice on me x5 responding to:
Originally Posted by losthorizon
One thing with BMWs is that they are murder to drive when it snows.

It is a generalisation but neither general enough or specific enough. I've a RWD BMW and it is indeed lethal on roads a FWD will have no problem on. That said I also drive a jeep and in RWD only it's just as likely to swop ends in slippery conditions. Other RWD cars I've owned were the same. So IMHO all RWD BMWs are challenging and more prone to bite than any FWD in slippery conditions. But they're no different to any other RWD.

Any RWD breaking traction is likely to snap into oversteer followed quickly by something hard if not corrected fast. It won't sort itself out even if grip is re-established, by for example traction control or lifting off, as the car is already heading off the road. FWD breaking out means a bit of understeer and may sort itself out with the car still pointing down the road albeit a bit to one side of the plan. It'll even be forgiving (relatively) of a panicked foot still on the gas as it'll spin the wheels but the rear wheels will just trail passively along behind. Keeping a RWD gassed up in a skid will have the back end overtake the front in short order- AKA a spin!

As ei.sdraob pointed out there are many BMW models so the AWD BMWs - X1,5,3 etc that do not have this characteristic. You'll find that all the AWDs - not just BMW push most of the power through the front wheels. Some put it all though the front unless there's front wheel spin and only then sends power through the rear.

Mine's a diesel and really is a handful on ice but pals with a 320i and a 520i do better on snow/ice and it's no surprise. Power delivery will always be smoother with a petrol engine - and the more cylinders the better. Diesels deliver a great slug of torque in a narrow rev range making it much more likely to break out the rear wheels even with a very gentle right foot. No engine weight over the driven wheels compounds the issue. It all contributes to the well-founded BMW image but it's also because they make some of the highest BHP/litre diesels.

If I was advising someone on buying a car and they commute on Winter roads over any distance I'd have to say avoid a RWD BMW -especially a diesel. That said on the other 365 Err 300 days of the year they really are a rewarding driver's choice.

-Chris-

Just as a thought on this RWD on snow issue, I'd expect because the OP is a Merc driver and therefore is quite happy with the driving characteristics (because they didn't mention it as a purchasing requirement/concern).

You might all be tying yourselves in knots over nothing