2011 BMW 316d info

Klopp · 04-05-2017 8:51pm #1

I didn't want to start a new thread but hoping the users can share and let me know if there anything major to look out for on a 316d 2.0 model? I know there were issues with model going back to 2011 with crank shaft causing timing belt issues i read here but assume that's all been resolved.

Toyotafanboi · 04-05-2017 9:41pm

Moved to a new thread OP

bazz26 · 04-05-2017 10:28pm

Timing chain problems aside which were still problematic back then, the 316d is not particularly powerful for a 2.0 litre diesel engine. It only has 115bhp, a 320d would be just about right in that car. Is there a particular reason you are drawn to a 316d over a 320d? That 3 Series model was coming to the end of it's life cycle by 2011 too, they were pretty cramped on the inside with a small enough boot.

Maybe look at a Volvo S60 too, D3 2.0 litre engine from 2011 would be the nice 5 cylinder unit which has a decent bit of torque and nicer sound to it. S60's interior in the right spec would be a lot nicer too.

Klopp · 05-05-2017 6:33am

bazz26 wrote: »

Timing chain problems aside which were still problematic back then, the 316d is not particularly powerful for a 2.0 litre diesel engine. It only has 115bhp, a 320d would be just about right in that car. Is there a particular reason you are drawn to a 316d over a 320d? That 3 Series model was coming to the end of it's life cycle by 2011 too, they were pretty cramped on the inside with a small enough boot.

Maybe look at a Volvo S60 too, D3 2.0 litre engine from 2011 would be the nice 5 cylinder unit which has a decent bit of torque and nicer sound to it. S60's interior in the right spec would be a lot nicer too.

Hi Baz, i was looking at 141 which had low miles, a good spec and was within budget. I know from reading online on BMW has a bit of a bad rep, some say there just a money pit, but i have also heard good the positives too.

grogi · 05-05-2017 7:28am

bazz26 wrote: »

That 3 Series model was coming to the end of it's life cycle by 2011 too, they were pretty cramped on the inside with a small enough boot.

When it was released, the E90/E91 was significantly roomer than E46 was - I would not call it cramped... F30/F31 is bigger alright, almost matching E39 in space department - but it is not really 'the smallest car you could consider'.

grogi · 05-05-2017 7:30am

Klopp wrote: »

Hi Baz, i was looking at 141 which had low miles, a good spec and was within budget. I know from reading online on BMW has a bit of a bad rep, some say there just a money pit, but i have also heard good the positives too.

BMW might be expensive to maintain. Some people will be fine with that risk, but want to be compensated with driving dynamics.

316d will handle nicely and would make a fine everyday car. But it simply is far too under-powered for a BMW and I would not drive one.

bazz26 · 05-05-2017 10:15am

I was under the impression the OP was looking at 2011 cars. I owned an E90 and it always felt small on the inside compared to the E46. The current F30 is definitely bigger than both.

grogi · 05-05-2017 10:18am

bazz26 wrote: »

I was under the impression the OP was looking at 2011 cars. I owned an E90 and it always felt small on the inside compared to the E46. The current F30 is definitely bigger than both.

Yes, he is.

Your statement however "That 3 Series model was coming to the end of it's life cycle by 2011 too, they were pretty cramped on the inside with a small enough boot" suggested that you find E90 small and that F30 would might be a better idea.

Klopp · 05-05-2017 10:25am

I didn't mention it was a 2011 model, just that i read there was issues with the timing belt up to that year with the 316d. I should have made that a bit more clearer in my OP. I was looking a 141 model with low miles, great spec, but it is very under powered and therefore not for me

grogi · 05-05-2017 10:31am

Klopp wrote: »

I didn't mention it was a 2011 model, just that i read there was issues with the timing belt up to that year with the 316d. I should have made that a bit more clearer in my OP. I was looking a 141 model with low miles, great spec, but it is very under powered and therefore not for me

You did mention it is 2011. In the title of the thread...

As said before, a F30 2014 is a much bigger car - as big as a 5-series from around 2000 would be. It is however slightly lighter than E90.

By no means it is a slow car - 0-100km in 10.9s. E39 with similar level of performance would be called 520d back than. But it is the slowest 3-series...

Klopp · 05-05-2017 11:01am

grogi wrote: »

You did mention it is 2011. In the title of the thread...

My bad, so i did. Can a mod change the title and remove 2011?

Trojan · 05-05-2017 12:54pm

I drove an early (2005/6) E90 316d for a weekend. Nice car but pretty shocked to find out it was a 2L engine as it doesn't seem anywhere near the power I'd expect.

ION08 · 05-05-2017 2:18pm

Trojan wrote: »

I drove an early (2005/6) E90 316d for a weekend. Nice car but pretty shocked to find out it was a 2L engine as it doesn't seem anywhere near the power I'd expect.

It's a De-tuned 2 Litre designed specifically for countries such as Ireland where people value cheap tax over a proper engine.

e90 320d is also a 2 litre engine but pushes out a more respectable 163/177bhp

bazz26 · 05-05-2017 2:52pm

I don't think there was a 316d E90 back in 2005/2006. The least powerful one would have been the 318d which had 122bhp back then. By late 2007 that would have been increased to 143bhp.

grogi · 05-05-2017 3:14pm

ION08 wrote: »

It's a De-tuned 2 Litre designed specifically for countries such as Ireland where people value cheap tax over a proper engine.

With the N47, all 316d, 318d and 320d burn around 4.5l/100km (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_E90#Dieselmotoren.5B4.5D). That translates to ~120g/km. There is hardly any CO2 advantage in 316d over 320d, maybe €10 a year.

bazz26 wrote: »

I don't think there was a 316d E90 back in 2005/2006. The least powerful one would have been the 318d which had 122bhp back then. By late 2007 that would have been increased to 143bhp.

As always spot on

316d was introduced in 2009.

ION08 · 05-05-2017 3:53pm

grogi wrote: »

With the N47, all 316d, 318d and 320d burn around 4.5l/100km (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_E90#Dieselmotoren.5B4.5D). That translates to ~120g/km. There is hardly any CO2 advantage in 316d over 320d, maybe ?10 a year.

As always spot on 316d was introduced in 2009.

regardless of how much they "burn", the selling point of these de-tuned 2.0d's is the cheap tax and BIK - thats their intended appeal, not consumption.

grogi · 05-05-2017 6:52pm

ION08 wrote: »

regardless of how much they "burn", the selling point of these de-tuned 2.0d's is the cheap tax and BIK - thats their intended appeal, not consumption.

A hint - what does the tax and bik rates base on?

ION08 · 05-05-2017 7:26pm

grogi wrote: »

A hit - what does the tax and bik rates base on?

"A hit"???

grogi · 05-05-2017 9:00pm

ION08 wrote: »

"A hit"???

Hint... Self Double Facepalm...

Trojan · 05-05-2017 9:14pm

bazz26 wrote: »

I don't think there was a 316d E90 back in 2005/2006.

It was definitely an E90 316d, I must have the year wrong

ION08 · 06-05-2017 8:02am

grogi wrote: »

Hint... Self Double Facepalm...

The answer to your strange question is emissions. What makes you believe I didnt know that????

keep facepalming yourself there because I have no idea what point you're trying to make, or what exactlty I have said that you have an issue with?

I simply made a point that the 316d is a detuned 2.0L engine designed to appeal to those who want cheap tax / bik (obviously based on emission)

grogi · 06-05-2017 8:21am

ION08 wrote: »

The answer to your strange question is emissions. What makes you believe I didnt know that????

keep facepalming yourself there because I have no idea what point you're trying to make, or what exactlty I have said that you have an issue with?

I simply made a point that the 316d is a detuned 2.0L engine designed to appeal to those who want cheap tax / bik (obviously based on emission)

If the consumption is the same, the emission of CO2 is the same! Thus there is no tax advantage.

bmwguy · 06-05-2017 11:50am

grogi wrote: »

If the consumption is the same, the emission of CO2 is the same! Thus there is no tax advantage.

There is. It's a cheaper car hence VRT is lower. Motor tax is the same on an annual basis.
If I was OP in the market and my budget topped out at a 2011 316d I would buy a 2010 320d.
And still save money.

grogi · 06-05-2017 1:05pm

bmwguy wrote: »

There is. It's a cheaper car hence VRT is lower. Motor tax is the same on an annual basis.

In other words - it was more attractive because it was cheaper. Cheaper to make (smaller turbo, less efficent injectors etc).

Nothing else, not the reduced emissions and recurrent tax.

If I was OP in the market and my budget topped out at a 2011 316d I would buy a 2010 320d. And still save money.

By the same logic you could probably buy 335d from 2008. Or a 740d from 2005. And still save money.

bmwguy · 06-05-2017 4:36pm

grogi wrote: »

In other words - it was more attractive because it was cheaper. Cheaper to make (smaller turbo, less efficent injectors etc).

Nothing else, not the reduced emissions and recurrent tax.

By the same logic you could probably buy 335d from 2008. Or a 740d from 2005. And still save money.

No, they would cost more to run.

2011 BMW 316d info

Comments