520d M-Sport Vs A4 Sline

Obsolete01

Hello,

So I am after selling my car and looking to buy either a 2007/2008 520d M=Sport or a 2008/2009 A4 S Line model and am undecided as to what would be the best car to buy.

Now I understand that both of these cars would want to be services on time which I have no issues with but I will be doing an average of about 400 miles per week maybe 500 and am wondering what would be the best to go for.

I know the A4's are supposed to have oil pump issues and that 520's have timing issues where the chain can slip or break.

Any advise would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

bazz26

The 5 Series and A4 are at different ends of the spectrum. The 5 Series is more comparitable to the A6 not the A4.

Obsolete01

Yes but they are still 2.0 diesel engines.....I am wondering about reliability and people that have had experience with both cars.

Tea 1000

5 Series is bigger, more comfortable, has a better engine, is RWD and is a much better handling car.
The A4 has a reasonably nice interior.
/Thread.

Obsolete01

Tea 1000 wrote: »

5 Series is bigger, more comfortable, has a better engine, is RWD and is a much better handling car.
The A4 has a reasonably nice interior.
/Thread.

ok and are you speaking from previous experience or how do you maintain it has a better engine than the Audi ?

Tea 1000

It has a better power delivery, is more fuel efficient, is 177bhp versus 143bhp unless you're comparing the 170bhp A4. There is a timing chain issue in them that might cause problems, but it doesn't happen too many, aside from that it's a bit less prone to problems.
But in every other respect the 5-Series as a car is better.

bazz26

Obsolete01 wrote: »

Yes but they are still 2.0 diesel engines.....I am wondering about reliability and people that have had experience with both cars.

Thats a strange way to compare the two, imo. One is a mid size rear wheel drive executive saloon and the other is a fwd junior executive saloon.

I have a 2008 3 Series with the same engine with 75k miles on it with no issues so far but they that's not to say that they don't suffer from problems especially the well documented timing chain issue. I keep my oil changed every 15k km though and ignore the 30k km intervals BMW recommend.

The newer A4 of 2008/2009 has a different engine to the previous generation with the oil pump and injector problems. I drove my cousin's 2008 A4 and found it very numb to drive, no feedback from the steering at all unlike my 3 Series, the A4 in front wheel drive form is definately an inferior driver's car compared to the BMW. I also found there was a noticeable vibration coming up through the clutch pedal which probably meant the DMF was on it's way out, seems to be common enough on the early new model A4s.

Have you test driven either as it really depends what youy want from a car?

Henry Ford III

3 series is equivalent to an A4.

Obsolete01

bazz26 wrote: »

Thats a strange way to compare the two, imo. One is a mid size rear wheel drive executive saloon and the other is a fwd junior executive saloon.

I have a 2008 3 Series with the same engine with 75k miles on it with no issues so far but they that's not to say that they don't suffer from problems especially the well documented timing chain issue. I keep my oil changed every 15k km though and ignore the 30k km intervals BMW recommend.

The newer A4 of 2008/2009 has a different engine to the previous generation with the oil pump and injector problems. I drove my cousin's 2008 A4 and found it very numb to drive, no feedback from the steering at all unlike my 3 Series, the A4 in front wheel drive form is definately an inferior driver's car compared to the BMW. I also found there was a noticeable vibration coming up through the clutch pedal which probably meant the DMF was on it's way out, seems to be common enough on the early new model A4s.

Have you test driven either as it really depends what youy want from a car?

I had a 2001 530d M Sport and sold it because of the tax and then got a 320d M Sport and unfortunately the engine blew due to one of the swirl flaps dropping and bending all of the valves so that has made me very cautious of buying another BMW so this is why I was considering the A4 also as I want power and comfort.

Yes I drove both and the A4 was slightly boring and the BMW had good pull.

Tea 1000

Obsolete01 wrote: »

I had a 2001 530d M Sport and sold it because of the tax and then got a 320d M Sport and unfortunately the engine blew due to one of the swirl flaps dropping and bending all of the valves so that has made me very cautious of buying another BMW so this is why I was considering the A4 also as I want power and comfort.

Yes I drove both and the A4 was slightly boring and the BMW had good pull.

You kind of have your answer there then. Sounds like you preferred the BMW, and any diesel these days is just as likely to give hassle as the next, so go with your preference.

Obsolete01

Tea 1000 wrote: »

You kind of have your answer there then. Sounds like you preferred the BMW, and any diesel these days is just as likely to give hassle as the next, so go with your preference.

See you'd think that after driving the 520 but I am very very cautious after what happened I know it sounds silly as I believe they got rid of the flaps in 2005 i believe.

Are there different engines in the 2005/2006 and 2007/2008's ?

Obsolete01

http://cars.donedeal.ie/for-sale/cars/4618890

Obsolete01

Bump.....for more advise

r3nu4l

Personally I would only get the A4 if it was quattro. If I was choosing on RWD vs quattro alone I'd go quattro everytime but there's more to this comparison than that and if you choose FWD over RWD you would want to have good reasons

H3llR4iser

I'll give you a very different opinion: I don't like either

If I had to choose, however, I would go with the BMW; It has more power, a more driver-oriented set up and seems to be a slightly better all-rounder than the Audi.
I know you had a bad experience with your 3-series, but it can happen with any car: I am sure that you'll find plenty of issues about the A4 as well if you start asking around...

Obsolete01

H3llR4iser wrote: »

I'll give you a very different opinion: I don't like either

If I had to choose, however, I would go with the BMW; It has more power, a more driver-oriented set up and seems to be a slightly better all-rounder than the Audi.
I know you had a bad experience with your 3-series, but it can happen with any car: I am sure that you'll find plenty of issues about the A4 as well if you start asking around...

Ok interesting approach If you had 14k to spend what would you buy?

bazz26

Obsolete01 wrote: »

Ok interesting approach If you had 14k to spend what would you buy?

You can buy a lot for €14k but it depends on what you want from a car. If you prefer something that drivers and handles pretty well then the BMW whereas if your priority is being surrounded by a posher interior then go for the Audi.

Blazer

07 520D LCI used the M47 engine from Mar-Sept which don't have the timing chain issue.
Sept 07 onwards they used the N47 engine which was subject to it but it's pretty rare despite the horror stories.
They're a fantastic car in fairness..I love getting into it every day and driving..I'd be in a 535D except a baby came along and broke me
Can't speak for the A4.

Tea 1000

I'd actually go for a Honda Accord new shape before an A4. Nicer looking car.

Idbatterim

I had a 2001 530d M Sport and sold it because of the tax and then got a 320d M Sport and unfortunately the engine blew due to one of the swirl flaps dropping and bending all of the valves so that has made me very cautious of buying another BMW so this is why I was considering the A4 also as I want power and comfort.

the swirl flaps issue isnt only on bmw's, they can be blanked for a pittance also, which totally addresses the issue. Most people buying used ones know of this issue and have them blanked...

Paddy@CIRL

2007 520D Sport every day of the week over the Audi A4.

GavMan

Obsolete01 wrote: »

Ok interesting approach If you had 14k to spend what would you buy?

Alfa 159

Stallingrad

GavMan wrote: »

Alfa 159

The 159 is so far from 5 series it's laughable.

GavMan

Stallingrad wrote: »

The 159 is so far from 5 series it's laughable.

Based on what, exactly? I'm not so sure.

Besides, when we're comparing a 520d to an A4, this particular 159 is worth a mention

keith_d99

Look into the N47 timing chain issue yourself and make your mind up.
Seems like a serious issue - that might be rare now - but most 2008+ cars are probably still under 100k miles.

Just bought a 2007 MSport with reasonable mileage (70k miles) and good service history.
I wanted to avoid the N47 engine, plus the value shoots up for 2008 because of emissions tax, eventhough the gap between the tax on emissions versus engine size.

Next decision then is manual V automatic - I went for automatic and glad I did.

166man

Stallingrad wrote: »

The 159 is so far from 5 series it's laughable.

As is an Audi A4.

OP, if you want something comfortable for doing the miles in I'd have the A4. M-Sport 5 series are just that, Sporty with run flats does not a comfortable car make.

A well specced A4 is a very nice place to be.

Stallingrad

GavMan wrote: »

Based on what, exactly? I'm not so sure.

Comfort, space, refinement, build quality, performance, emissions, etc.

The 159 is arguably a better looking car, probably no less reliable, but that is about it.

By all means compare it to an A4, but it can't hold a candle to any 5 series.

keith_d99

166man wrote: »

M-Sport 5 series are just that, Sporty with run flats does not a comfortable car make.

Was a worry for me til I drove one - greatly exaggerated.
Have 5000 kms left on my runflats - need to decide to ditch or not.

Harcrid

Tea 1000 wrote: »

I'd actually go for a Honda Accord new shape before an A4. Nicer looking car.

As would I.

Obsolete01

Blazer wrote: »

07 520D LCI used the M47 engine from Mar-Sept which don't have the timing chain issue.
Sept 07 onwards they used the N47 engine which was subject to it but it's pretty rare despite the horror stories.
They're a fantastic car in fairness..I love getting into it every day and driving..I'd be in a 535D except a baby came along and broke me
Can't speak for the A4.

Ok so let me get this straight........if i was to get the 520d i should get the M47 engine and this is only available from March to September? And if this is correct then what engine is in the ones before March? Do you own a 5 series?

Obsolete01

keith_d99 wrote: »

Look into the N47 timing chain issue yourself and make your mind up.
Seems like a serious issue - that might be rare now - but most 2008+ cars are probably still under 100k miles.

Just bought a 2007 MSport with reasonable mileage (70k miles) and good service history.
I wanted to avoid the N47 engine, plus the value shoots up for 2008 because of emissions tax, eventhough the gap between the tax on emissions versus engine size.

Next decision then is manual V automatic - I went for automatic and glad I did.

I think I would prefer to go manual. So am I right on saying that no 2007 has the timing issue?

H3llR4iser

Obsolete01 wrote: »

Ok interesting approach If you had 14k to spend what would you buy?

Excellent question...the landscape is a bit dire, honestly. A lot of modern cars are dull to drive, sluggish, overgrown and overweight.

There's also a severe lacking in the looks department; I will get flak for this - but the German designs look crass and extremely inelegant to me, while many Japanese cars seem to be coming out of the imagination of a 14 years old.

I would probably spend less than the 14k, get the mentioned 159, a Volvo S40 or a Saab 9-3. Which still are somewhat overweight and overgrown, but at least are easier on the eye.

Stallingrad wrote: »

Comfort, space, refinement, build quality, performance, emissions, etc.

The 159 is arguably a better looking car, probably no less reliable, but that is about it.

By all means compare it to an A4, but it can't hold a candle to any 5 series.

Curious...how did exactly things such as "Comfort, space, refinement, build quality, etc." are measured? On the emissions and performance department, I'm with you - and I have to say it's mostly because of certain totally idiotic choices FIAT made for Alfa Romeo. But the rest, I wonder if it isn't "Paddy down the pub says so"?

166man

Stallingrad wrote: »

Comfort, space, refinement, build quality, performance, emissions, etc.

The 159 is arguably a better looking car, probably no less reliable, but that is about it.

By all means compare it to an A4, but it can't hold a candle to any 5 series.

Refinement in a Sporty 5 Series on runflats? I think the Alfa would be there or there abouts on that score tbh, as regards build quality I suggest you take a look at the 159's interior, seriously sturdy and very well designed.

Coolbreeze2809

166man wrote: »

Refinement in a Sporty 5 Series on runflats? I think the Alfa would be there or there abouts on that score tbh, as regards build quality I suggest you take a look at the 159's interior, seriously sturdy and very well designed.

Until the Alfa bursts into flames....

MuppetCheck

Ah come off it, the 5 series is a much quieter car, drives better and actually has a better perceived quality. Take the Alfas column stalks for example - they are utter cheap rubbish. Then rest of the interior isn't bad at all, but the 5 series is a nicer place to spend time. More spacious for 4.

As for reliability they are probably on a par. Harder to find an Alfa than the 5 series, but the prices would be very tempting.

MuppetCheck

Coolbreeze2809 wrote: »

Until the Alfa bursts into flames....

Happens them all sure:rolleyes:

keith_d99

Obsolete01 wrote: »

I think I would prefer to go manual. So am I right on saying that no 2007 has the timing issue?

Do some reading on 520D Manual versus Automatic before making up your mind. When I did some research (reviews etc.) - the manual became a no-no.

No 2007 model has the N47 engine. There was a minor facelift revision in 2008 and there was a few months where the facelift version had the N47 engine, and after that the M47 was used.

Cartell.ie usually tells you the engine if you have the reg for free.

166man

MuppetCheck wrote: »

Ah come off it, the 5 series is a much quieter car, drives better and actually has a better perceived quality. Take the Alfas column stalks for example - they are utter cheap rubbish. Then rest of the interior isn't bad at all, but the 5 series is a nicer place to spend time. More spacious for 4.

As for reliability they are probably on a par. Harder to find an Alfa than the 5 series, but the prices would be very tempting.

Column stalks? Are you for real? Obviously the 5 Series is bigger inside, think we all have agreed on that one tbh.

Sorry getting sidetracked now, OP anyone I have ever spoken to has gone auto over manual in the 5 Series, apparently the manual box isn't great.

MuppetCheck

166man wrote: »

Column stalks? Are you for real? Obviously the 5 Series is bigger inside, think we all have agreed on that one tbh.

Sorry getting sidetracked now, OP anyone I have ever spoken to has gone auto over manual in the 5 Series, apparently the manual box isn't great.

I'm serious, it was an example and is something used a lot in a car. If that is the best they could do then it isn't good enough.

And as for the space I was giving my opinion on that. I still think the 159 is an inferior choice to a good e60 bar for value.

166man

MuppetCheck wrote: »

I'm serious, it was an example and is something used a lot in a car. If that is the best they could do then it isn't good enough.

And as for the space I was giving my opinion on that. I still think the 159 is an inferior choice to a good e60 bar for value.

If that's the only thing you can think of of where the quality is lacking then it's a poor argument really.

For me it comes down to space, if I needed the bigger car then the 5 would win every day. If it was only me in the car 90% of the time then I'd probably have the 159 tbh. A simple remap on the 1.9 will bring it to 180bhp.

BMW drives better I'm sure but for comfort, the 159 all the way.

Stallingrad

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Curious...how did exactly things such as "Comfort, space, refinement, build quality, etc." are measured? On the emissions and performance department, I'm with you - and I have to say it's mostly because of certain totally idiotic choices FIAT made for Alfa Romeo. But the rest, I wonder if it isn't "Paddy down the pub says so"?

You only have to drive both to find out, and you can measure space with a ruler. . The 159 is a nice car, but to compare it to the 5 is just cruel.

MuppetCheck

166man wrote: »

If that's the only thing you can think of of where the quality is lacking then it's a poor argument really.

For me it comes down to space, if I needed the bigger car then the 5 would win every day. If it was only me in the car 90% of the time then I'd probably have the 159 tbh. A simple remap on the 1.9 will bring it to 180bhp.

BMW drives better I'm sure but for comfort, the 159 all the way.

It's not the only thing I can think of. I have pointed it out as an example and stated so twice. Check my posts and you will see the word twice. You are picking points in my posts to cause an argument with me yet again simply because I believe on the whole the 5er is the better car and have driven both. There's the often poor paint quality, swirl flaps on the 150s inlet manifold, egr problems, poor internal packaging given the size of the car. I'm not coming down on 159s, I'm just stating that I feel the 5 series is a more complete car.

And as for the comfort argument, a simple change in tyres would suffice. It's a cheaper option than remapping a car to 5 series power as you are effectively saving money going for non run flats come replacement time.

The Pontiac

Can't believe this argument. An Alfa (Fiat) 159 1.9 Vs BMW 520D Diesel?

Are we serious?

The Dagda

You are a fool to ask this forum. Most people answering have no basis for answering other than having listened to Jeremy Carson at some point.
Both cars are quality any difference will come down to personal choice.

166man

MuppetCheck wrote: »

It's not the only thing I can think of. I have pointed it out as an example and stated so twice. Check my posts and you will see the word twice. You are picking points in my posts to cause an argument with me yet again simply because I believe on the whole the 5er is the better car and have driven both. There's the often poor paint quality, swirl flaps on the 150s inlet manifold, egr problems, poor internal packaging given the size of the car. I'm not coming down on 159s, I'm just stating that I feel the 5 series is a more complete car.

And as for the comfort argument, a simple change in tyres would suffice. It's a cheaper option than remapping a car to 5 series power as you are effectively saving money going for non run flats come replacement time.

I couldn't give a toss about arguing with someone like yourself MuppetC honestly, wouldn't waste my time.

I'm sure the BMW is the more complete car seeing as it costs considerably more but my thinking was that in the refinement, reliability and quality of the interior, the BMW isn't a million miles ahead IMO. In terms of space, fuel economy, performance and driving it is indeed better.

The Pontiac wrote: »

Can't believe this argument. An Alfa (Fiat) 159 1.9 Vs BMW 520D Diesel?

Are we serious?

In terms of the above criteria yes I believe we are.

MuppetCheck

Someone like me 166man? What do you mean by that? I'm sure you've driven both and are in a position to compare 166man and that was my opinion from doing just that.

rocky

5 series or A4? Get the Audi, if you have to ask you won't appreciate the difference

Obsolete01

Ok we gone off point here.....who here has a 2007 520d Msport or a 2008 A4 S Line? I want people opinion based on tjeir experience. I'm not buying this as a family car add I am no where near tasty for a family I am buying this for comfort and power. I know the Audi has oil pump pairs and I know the 520 has turbo/timing issues.

declan_8

My bro has a 2008 a4 2.0 Tdi for the past 3 years. I myself drive a 2008 320d sport. On the a4 the bro has had to replace clutch and fly wheel within the last month with just 50 k covered. His air conditioning motor has also packed it in and has yet too fix this. He got the gas checked and it was fine. 2 years ago and luckily within the uk 3 years Audi warranty the engine gave up. He was lucky to be within months of the warranty expiring and Audi replaced the full engine under warranty. Needless to say he is not looking to replace it with another.
In terms of my own bmw I'm well aware of the timing chain issue but seeing recently this can be fixed for much less money than original figures quoted using a reliable specialist and certainly not a whole lot of difference in. What you will pay to get the clutch and flywheel changed in the a4. It's a bad design flaw which you Can't defend bmw on. Ive also drove the m47 engine fitted to the pre september 2007 cars and there is more notice of the turbo kick in but the power delivery on the n47 is smoother and spread over a wider rev band.
Having drove both cars regular I was always like getting back into the bmw and I've found it easier to run also.
As another poster says all modern diesels have issues and all have far too long service intervals. Keep them well maintained and hopefully that will help to keep things right.

Blazer

Obsolete01 wrote: »

Ok so let me get this straight........if i was to get the 520d i should get the M47 engine and this is only available from March to September? And if this is correct then what engine is in the ones before March? Do you own a 5 series?

Hiya,,
The M47 engine is in all 520D's from 2003 to Sept 2007
The LCI version of the 520D was released in March 2007 so from March-Sept 2007 you can get a LCI version of the 520D with the M47 engine.
The LCI was basically just a redesign such as the LED rear lights etc and some internals.

Yes..I have one..a march 2007 but not an m-sport version,
I love the car...miles better than an A4 ..I have the car now nearly 2 years and still smile getting into it..I was going for a M5 or 535D but just had a newborn son so that put an end to that:) for the moment..

so basically my car is 07 LCI 520D SE 163HP (I went with SE instead of M-sport due to the stories about a hard ride..very exaggerated I found out afterwards and regretted it then).
The N47 engine is found in all 520D's after Sep 2007. HP goes from 163 to 177 but torque goes up by about 40nm so a nice difference alright. However this is negated by the timing chain issue.
I did a remap on mine going from 163hp to 202hp and torque from 348nm to 410nm making a huge difference in the car thus bringing it between a 525 and a 530D ; which tried to out accelerate me and was upset when I was still in his rear view mirror

Tea 1000

Blazer wrote: »

Hiya,,
The M47 engine is in all 520D's from 2003 to Sept 2007
The LCI version of the 520D was released in March 2007 so from March-Sept 2007 you can get a LCI version of the 520D with the M47 engine.
The LCI was basically just a redesign such as the LED rear lights etc and some internals.

Yes..I have one..a march 2007 but not an m-sport version,
I love the car...miles better than an A4 ..I have the car now nearly 2 years and still smile getting into it..I was going for a M5 or 535D but just had a newborn son so that put an end to that:) for the moment..

so basically my car is 07 LCI 520D SE 163HP (I went with SE instead of M-sport due to the stories about a hard ride..very exaggerated I found out afterwards and regretted it then).
The N47 engine is found in all 520D's after Sep 2007. HP goes from 163 to 177 but torque goes up by about 40nm so a nice difference alright. However this is negated by the timing chain issue.
I did a remap on mine going from 163hp to 202hp and torque from 348nm to 410nm making a huge difference in the car thus bringing it between a 525 and a 530D ; which tried to out accelerate me and was upset when I was still in his rear view mirror

Yep, I think the run flat tyres make the biggest difference in the 5 series, the M-Sport isn't that bad.