BMW 520d Efficient Dynamics

Leonard Hofstadter

This has exactly the same power and torque as the regular 520d, but has a higher top speed (232 kph rather than 227 kph), and is only 0.1 seconds slower from 0-100, although 80-120 in fourth takes 7.5 seconds rather than 6.9 for the regular car.

What is very impressive is that this car does 62.8 mpg combined, but even more impressive is that it is now in VRT band A for tax!

This really puts it up to the Volvo S80, which also has a VRT band A engine, but that engine is a measly little 1.6 with just 108 bhp.

Irish people are going to be in love with this car, you're losing very little in performance but getting those extra mpgs and that 52 euro saving in road tax is a big deal to some people (of course, it should make the 5 series cheaper to buy as well).

http://www.bmw.co.uk/bmwuk/pricesandspecifications_technical_specs/0,,1156_181256731__bs-NQ%3D%3D%40bb-TEkxMA%3D%3D%40bm-Rlc5Mg%3D%3D%40sit-bmwuk,00.html?tab=technicalSpec&isPGA=

Oh and the 2012 MY 5 series will Dynamic Damper Control as standard, so in theory it will be possible to make the car drive and ride like a car with the BMW badge should, which is a good thing given that the latest 5 series has been slated for not driving like a BMW should unless you put fancy driving options into it.

Idbatterim

those figures are extremely impressive when you consider the weight of the car! getting that hp and still delivery high combined cycle mpg is some achievement!

mickdw

Im presuming the new model 5 series already had ED features similar to the E60 so is this a further step in efficiency? From the fugures I would assume it is. Does it come with stupidly narrow tyres or something like that?

Leonard Hofstadter

No, it's got 17 inch alloys as standard.

It seems to have revised gear ratios, but has rather ugly 'Streamline' wheels.

There is also a revised four cylinder 2.0 twin turbo diesel with no less than 218 PS:eek:! 218 PS from a 2.0 diesel is unbeliveable really, but with BMW's track record on turbo diesels (and now there is two of them) I suspect it will prove to be about as reliable as a Fiat Ritmo.

It's not just that I don't like either - it means that BMW has now joined the downsizing trend and this of course is very bad news - it means the six cylinder engines that the company is famous for are now even more expensive than ever before, because once upon a time something with a 20i badge on the bonnet meant you got the wonderfulness of six cylinders, and now you have to go to a 30i or 30d model to get the six cylinders, and call me old fashioned, but to me a BMW does not feel like an expensive car without a six cylinder engine.

No matter how quick a four cylinder engine is, it just does not have the feeling of a six cylinder engine, and it will never sound as good or be as quiet or as refined as a six cylinder engine.

Even worse than this is that the naturally aspirated six cylinder petrol engines have virtually been replaced by four cylinder turbocharged engines - again more complication and not as good a sound as the six cylinder engine.

n97 mini

captainspeed wrote: »

No matter how quick a four cylinder engine is, it just does not have the feeling of a six cylinder engine,

A 6 cylinder petrol is smooth. Doesn't matter how many cylinders in a diesel... you'll always know it's a diesel.

Anan1

mickdw wrote: »

Does it come with stupidly narrow tyres or something like that?

Stupidly wide tyres have been standard on all 4 cylinder BMWs for quite some time now.

mickdw

n97 mini wrote: »

A 6 cylinder petrol is smooth. Doesn't matter how many cylinders in a diesel... you'll always know it's a diesel.

Thats crap imo. mercedes 6 cylinder diesels sound pretty damn sweet. Along way ahead of the latest trend for the 4 cylinder diesels which are only marginally better than an 1980s jetta

mickdw

Anan1 wrote: »

Stupidly wide tyres have been standard on all 4 cylinder BMWs for quite some time now.

What do you call stupidly wide? I think bmw keep the fronts quite reasonable usually. Is this your argument about Msport and all show, no go cropping up again?

My question re the tyres related to whether they were fitting a tyre just to make the efficiency figures but knowing that most would actually fit something else.

n97 mini

mickdw wrote: »

Thats crap imo.

What exactly is crap?

Are you saying you can't tell a diesel engine from a petrol engine?

Leonard Hofstadter

n97 mini wrote: »

What exactly is crap?

Are you saying you can't tell a diesel engine from a petrol engine?

Saying that there is not much point in a six cylinder diesel because it will still sound like a diesel is silly IMHO.

Obviously, a six cylinder diesel doesn't sound as nice as the petrol equivalent, but I think they sound pretty good, certainly I think they sound better than many a four cylinder petrol.

Six cylinder diesels are more reliable (larger capacity so less stress on the engine), smoother (because more cylinders = more smoothness), sound nicer (IMO), and are quieter than the four cylinder equivalent, therefore they are useful. They also have more power, but that is because they usually have larger engines rather than because of more cylinders.

I genuinely don't see these new generation high output diesels lasting that long. BMW couldn't get an engine with 'only' 75 bhp per litre to last more than 100,000 miles without lunching a turbo, what hope have they with an engine developing nearly 110 bhp per litre and not one but two turbos? The less powerful diesels give enough trouble with DPFs, DMFs, EGR valves etc and now these engines with all that power are going to be putting the block, pistons, crankshaft, turbos etc under more stress than a larger displacement engine of the same power output. Even the relatively simple petrol engines are going to be less reliable with turbocharging and direct injection, though even the 120+ bhp per litre petrols have relatively low boost turbos (certainly they are low boost compared to a moderately high bhp per litre diesel engine) and because petrol is naturally far more powerful than diesel, the turbo will have a much easier life in a petrol, so at least in theory the turbo should last a lot longer in a petrol engine, and there are products out there which can cure carbon build up for about €60 rather than stripping down the engine to decoke it like what happened before, so even the new more complicated petrols should still be less troublesome than diesels.

VolvoMan

It's a pity the new 5 Series is such a bloated lump of a car though. They've dropped the ball so far that I'd say the S80 is nearly a match for it dynamically.

coolbeans

The S80 is better looking too.

n97 mini

captainspeed wrote: »

Saying that there is not much point in a six cylinder diesel because it will still sound like a diesel is silly IMHO.

I agree. Who said that anyway?

Voodoomelon

These tax bands are really pissing me off now. Every car is soon going to be in tax band A and people in older large engined cars will be subsidising the whole system, even though most are less than 100% as polluting. Headwrecking.

Leonard Hofstadter

Voodoomelon wrote: »

These tax bands are really pissing me off now. Every car is soon going to be in tax band A and people in older large engined cars will be subsidising the whole system, even though most are less than 100% as polluting. Headwrecking.

I reckon those tax bands will be increased, there is no way the Government is going to let a situation whereby even someone who can buy a BMW 5 series can get away with paying just €104 to tax it every year, and where so far this year 90% of cars sold are either in the €104 tax band or else the €156 tax band last too much longer.

When the 2012 MY 530d and 535d go on sale, these will be only €302 to tax, whereas someone with an 07 530d or 535d is paying €1293.

It will be brilliant once these cars become affordable though, it will mean that you will be able to buy cars like a 5 series with the engine they deserve and not be raped by the Government every time you go and tax it.

pburns

I reckon car tax is gonna get hit big time in future budgets because FF/Greens were probably a little generous (a.) to placate the Green-weenie environmentalists and (b.) they grossly underestimated how fast some manufacturers would respond.

The SIMI weren't crying either as they could fabricate the complete lie that newer cars were better for the environment.

Of course they're gonna raise the cost for each tax band but they'll probably have to fiddle with the tax bands soon too or all new cars will be in Band A or B. It's virtually like that already anyway!

Leonard Hofstadter

pburns wrote: »

I reckon car tax is gonna get hit big time in future budgets because FF/Greens were probably a little generous (a.) to placate the Green-weenie environmentalists and (b.) they grossly underestimated how fast some manufacturers would respond.

The SIMI weren't crying either as they could fabricate the complete lie that newer cars were better for the environment.

Of course they're gonna raise the cost for each tax band but they'll probably have to fiddle with the tax bands soon too or all new cars will be in Band A or B. It's virtually like that already anyway!

In other countries with CO2 based taxation, the bands have been adjusted downwards over time, so definitely there will be some adjustment as time goes by.

I can't remember if it was this Government, or the previous one that said they were going to review the CO2 based taxation in 2012 anyway.

Now what will be interesting to see is if say all bands are brought down by 10 g/km for 2012, will it be for 2012 onwards cars that will have the new bands, or will they go back and apply it to 2008 cars?

In other countries, it's only for newer cars, so the emissions of a car in band B in say 2005 is what would qualify for band D in 2010.

The real problem with the CO2 based taxation is not the bands themselves, but the massive differentiation in tax rates depending on what band you are in.

While I can understand the logic at the time, which was to encourage people in the strongest possible terms to buy the lowest CO2 rated car, the problem is that back in 2008 a Mondeo or Avensis was in band C or D, so the Government was getting 302 or 447 euro (and 447 is even a little more than what a 1.6 petrol Avensis or Mondeo pays on the cc system), which was fairly close to what they got on the old system, but now things have improved so much that band B and €156 tax is looking a little high polluting, and band A is starting to become the norm at that segment of car, so the Government is only getting half or even a quarter of what they were getting before.

If they had any sense, they would have done it something like this:
- band A - €270
- band B - €320
- band C - €380
- band D - €470
- band E - €600
- band F - €750
- band G - €900

Obviously, there wouldn't be anything like the differentiation or the encouragement to buy low CO2 vehicles, but it would mean that people who like cars can buy something nice in band F or G can do so without being raped, there is still a good incentive for people who are not interested in cars to buy the lowest tax vehicle (because Irish people as we know hate paying a cent more than absolutely necessary to tax their cars so people would still flock to the small capacity / low CO2 vehicles) and most importantly, while the Government will be losing some money compared to before, it will be nothing like as bad as with the current system and 90% of cars being €156 or €104 to tax.

veetwin

It's about time we had a BMW/520D/4 cylinder diesel bashing thread...must be at least 3 days since the last one!

bazz26

Some people seem to forget that in order for the likes of BMW to continue to develope 6, 8, 10 cylinder engines, etc and cars like the M Powered versions they need to sell their "lowely" 4 cylinder engines by the drove. At the end of the day they are a business run by executives and share holders where the company books still need to balance. You have to make money to spend money.

VolvoMan

bazz26 wrote: »

Some people seem to forget that in order for the likes of BMW to continue to develope 6, 8, 10 cylinder engines, etc and cars like the M Powered versions they need to sell their "lowely" 4 cylinder engines by the drove. At the end of the day they are a business run by executives and share holders where the company books still need to balance. You have to make money to spend money.

It's a pain in the hole when all they are selling in this country is the 520d though. I'd actually nearly swear that 90% of their sales are one car.

Nonoperational

It's the cheapest, lowest tax, plenty power for most, pretty well equipped... It's easy to see why in fairness.

unkel

The 520d was the best selling car in Ireland in August of last year iirc

Selling even more than scrappage sh1tboxes from Korea

-Chris-

unkel wrote: »

The 520d was the best selling car in Ireland in August of last year iirc

Selling even more than scrappage sh1tboxes from Korea

That's because it was the launch month for the 520d - there was a LOT of pent up demand for that car.
It's still a pretty telling statistic though...

mickdw

n97 mini wrote: »

What exactly is crap?

Im saying it is crap to say that it doesnt matter how many cylinders a diesel has. 6 cylinder diesel is very acceptable in even an S Class mercedes. A 4 cylinder would be a crime.

IMO
6 cylinder petrol nicer than 6 cylinder diesel
6 cylinder diesel nicer than 4 cylinder petrol
4 cylinder petrol nicer than 4 cylinder diesel.

VolvoMan

gpf101 wrote: »

It's the cheapest, lowest tax, plenty power for most, pretty well equipped... It's easy to see why in fairness.

I'm not doubting its efficiency, I just wish that people chose other models in the range as well.

Leonard Hofstadter

VolvoMan wrote: »

I'm not doubting its efficiency, I just wish that people chose other models in the range as well.

When the 2012 MY cars come in, the lineup will look as follows:

520i - band D for manual and and band C for the auto, but of course this is a crummy four cylinder rather than a nice six cylinder, and has 20 fewer horsepower than the 523i it replaces. Not that any of this matters, because nobody in Ireland will buy a petrol 5 series even if it was in band A for tax, even though the petrol is far more suitable for city drivers.
What is interesting is how much of this supposed fuel efficiency improvement is down to the fact that there is auto stop and start on both manual and automatic - the six cylinder engine it replaces did not have auto stop and start. My bet is that if you put auto stop and start into the six cylinder engines, the fuel economy "improvements" would be massively reduced (more on this in a bit).
528i - also band D for manual and band C for the auto, again a common as muck four banger instead of a naturally aspirated six cylinder unit.

The good stuff for the petrols:
- the return of the 530i, and unusally for a crowd that want an all-turbo lineup, this will have a naturally aspirated six cylinder engine, in band E for both manual and automatic, one wonders how much better it would do if it had auto stop and start, given that a significant proportion of the EU tests involve having the car at idle (which I'll get to in a minute)
- the 535i will be in band E rather than band F, because it now does have auto stop and start. What is particularly of interest to me at least is that the auto was rated for 199 g/km, but because of auto stop and start, it is now down to 179 g/km.

What this means is that auto stop and start reduces fuel consumption by ten per cent, meaning that the main reason the four cylinder engines appear more fuel efficient is because it has auto stop and start. If the naturally aspirated 530i had auto stop and start, it would be as fuel efficient as the turbocharged four cylinder 520i and 528i.

If the CO2 of the new 530i auto was reduced by ten per cent because BMW put auto stop and start into it, then its emissions would be 156 g/km rather than 173 g/km at the moment - this is just four grams more than a turbocharged 528i automatic (152 g/km) but has 272 bhp rather than 245 bhp.

BMW, why are you telling us porkies about how the four cylinder engine is supposed to be more economical than the six cylinder engine it is replacing? Is it because what you're really at is reducing costs, because we all know it costs more money to make a three litre six cylinder engine than a two litre four cylinder engine?

Sorry for the rant everyone, but to me at least, it is utterly daft to claim as BMW does that it is replacing the six cylinder engines with four bangers because of the evil EU and CO2 and mpg blah blah blah, when the real reason the naturally aspirated six cylinder engine looks to be more fond of the jungle juice is because it does not have auto stop and start!

Anyway, to get a little more on topic, the 550i is still in band G.

The diesel line up is as follows:

- 520d Efficient Dynamics - manual only, and in band A
- 520d - as before (band B for manual and automatic, and no ugly wheels)
- 525d - band B for both the manual and automatic, rather than band D.
This would appear to be because of the switch from a 3.0 single turbo six cylinder diesel, but again BMW is exaggerating about the supposed fuel efficiency improvements of the four cylinder engine
- 530d - band C for the manual, and most impressively, band B for the auto.

Is sacrificing two cylinders really worth it to get 58.8 mpg rather than 53.3 mpg, especially when you're losing 40 bhp? I don't think so.

What bothers me about this new four cylinder engine (apart from the likelihood of terrible reliablility - it's a BMW and we all know how bad BMW diesels are for lunching turbos and the 525d has not one but two of them to worry about) is not that it exists, but that they could have done a detuned six cylinder engine, like the Efficient Dynamics editions in say the X1 and changed the gearing etc to make a car that is slower than the 530d but as efficient as the 525d.

Anyway, the 535d is now in VRT band C (yes, seriously), will have 313 bhp (was 299 bhp), and best of all, will do 52 mpg:eek:!

bazz26

I doubt BMW give much thought to the tiny Irish market or it's motor tax system.

R.O.R

VolvoMan wrote: »

I'm not doubting its efficiency, I just wish that people chose other models in the range as well.

Have you had a look at the differences between the models in the 5 series range?

The 525d SE Auto is €10,789 more than the 520d SE Auto, and that's before you start adding extra's (extra on the 525d are more than the 520d because of the VRT bracket).

For your (almost) 11 grand you get:

20 more horespower
70mn more torque
2 extra cylinders
1 second quicker to 100km/h
Lower Fuel Economy
Higher annual Road Tax
No higher resale value - possibly a bit worse


Having driven them both, you really would have to be a bit special to go for the 525d.

-Corkie-

I cannot understand people calling them crap. They are far from it.

RandomAccess

captainspeed wrote: »

...
Anyway, the 535d is now in VRT band C (yes, seriously), will have 313 bhp (was 299 bhp), and best of all, will do 52 mpg:eek:!

From what I gleaned from the following articles there is a 3litre diesel with 313bhp in the new 6 series as well, however it bears the 640d title..
Hard to compare across model lines, the co2 and acceleration figures are different due to gearing, weight, aerodynamics etc but I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same engine. Can't say I'm a fan of such artificial badge inflation.

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/07/01/bmw-reveals-2012-6-series-m-sport-and-diesel-models

http://www.bmw.co.uk/bmwuk/pricesandspecifications/0,,1156_181256731__bs-Ng%3D%3D%40bb-RjEzQ1A%3D%40bm-Rlc5Mg%3D%3D%40sit-bmwuk,00.html

VolvoMan

It will be interesting to see how Jaguar price the new XF 2.2D. I think that's where my money would be going in this segment.