nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

* Motors chat - round 12 *

[Deleted User]

This thread is for motoring topics which you feel are not worthy of starting a new thread for, banter from a meet or general motoring related chit chat.

Keep it clean, be nice and helpful.

Motors charter applies.

Round 11 is HERE

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

blade1

vintagevrs wrote: »

My car came with CF wing mirror covers. No idea if they are genuine, but guessing they are cheap ones from eBay as the lacquer had faded/hazed badly enough. I was considering buying new gloss black ones but doing a bit of a clean up on the car today decided to try the polishing machine on them. Thought if I wreck them no harm as they looked like shīt anyway. Looks like it did the trick though so happy days.

One of the great things about carbon!!!!
It's usually just the lacquer!!

Wibbs

vintagevrs wrote: »

My car came with CF wing mirror covers. No idea if they are genuine, but guessing they are cheap ones from eBay as the lacquer had faded/hazed badly enough. I was considering buying new gloss black ones but doing a bit of a clean up on the car today decided to try the polishing machine on them. Thought if I wreck them no harm as they looked like shīt anyway. Looks like it did the trick though so happy days.

Jaysus V, you did a great job there. Look like new. That reminds me, my yoke needs a bit of a polish. Where are ya based...

farna_boy

I chanced just driving up to a local garage and they had a quick look but didn't actually do a compression test.

They cleared all the errors so the check engine light is now off but I'm still seeing plumes of smoke and a small misfire at high revs.As long as I keep it under 4k revs though everything is peachy.

Does anyone know if those petrol additives could cause smoke out the exhaust when they are cleaning the engine?

I have a feeling I know the answer but I'm hoping against hope I don't have to spend any more money on the car.

wotzgoingon

farna_boy wrote: »

I chanced just driving up to a local garage and they had a quick look but didn't actually do a compression test.

They cleared all the errors so the check engine light is now off but I'm still seeing plumes of smoke and a small misfire at high revs.As long as I keep it under 4k revs though everything is peachy.

Does anyone know if those petrol additives could cause smoke out the exhaust when they are cleaning the engine?

I have a feeling I know the answer but I'm hoping against hope I don't have to spend any more money on the car.

What did they tell you when handing back the keys.

No there would be no smoke from petrol additives.

farna_boy

wotzgoingon wrote: »

What did they tell you when handing back the keys.

No there would be no smoke from petrol additives.

They said the errors were listed as misfires but it is obvious that there are no misfires on the car now when it is idling/ under 4k revs. Even over 4k, I can only say it feels like I'm losing a bit of power, not that it is necessarily misfiring.

There had been a number of oil leaks on the car (which were also causing smoke) but I have just finished replacing the valve cover gasket, oil housing filter gasket, eccentric motor gasket and spark plugs so I think those errors are from before I fixed the car.

I had read that it might take some time for oil residue to burn off from the leaks but I would have thought that would have cleared by now.

wotzgoingon

What car is it?

farna_boy

wotzgoingon wrote: »

What car is it?

BMW E60 525i

[Deleted User]

farna_boy wrote: »

I chanced just driving up to a local garage and they had a quick look but didn't actually do a compression test.
....

Did they offer the option of a proper diagnostics?
Did they charge you.... They seem clueless and / or uninterested in your business.

farna_boy

Augeo wrote: »

Did they offer the option of a proper diagnostics?
Did they charge you.... They seem clueless and / or uninterested in your business.

In fairness, I just dropped in and they stopped what they were doing to help me. They hooked up the diagnostic tool but the misfires were the only noteworthy thing that popped up and once the car restarted none of the errors came back. Plus they only charged me €20 to clear the errors, so I don't think I can complain.

selectamatic

Bmw e90 320d's

Pre Lci

The first of them were m47 powered and made 160bhp. Most of these would be 2005-2006 some early 2007 regs too.

Then from 2007 on they got the n47 174bhp engine. 2008 saw the Lci introduced.
The n47 was upgraded to 181bhp at some stage and they're was some eco model that made 160bhp too.

So if I understand this correctly pre lci cars still got the n47 engines for a little while.

Is this correct? Or did all pre lci cars still have the m47 even up as far as early 2008 ones.

Me head is melted looking for a replacement car atm.

vintagevrs

I had a 2007 that had the n47 but that was a coupe. I think but could be wrong a check when browsing ads is look at the exhaust pipe. The older 163 ones are turned down. The newer 177 ones are straight out the back.

Leonard Hofstadter

N47s were introduced in cars built from September 2007 for E90s and E91s, so the last of the pre-LCIs will have this engine. Same goes for the NA petrols and other diesels, cars built from September 07 onwards got the Efficient Dynamics technology and the corresponding decrease in reliability (not to mention the loss of hydraulic power steering in some cases) that goes with it.

The upgrade to the four cylinder (and some six cylinder) diesel engines occurred in cars built from February 2010, they switched from using the N47 to the N47N engine, and this brought about the increase from 174 to 181 bhp for the 320d (the 316d and 318d saw no increase in power despite the engine upgrade), the 325d switched from the M57N2 engine to the N57 engine at this time, too (the 330d always used the N57 from the LCI onwards - or early 2009 in the case of the E92 and E93, while the 335d kept the M57N2 right until end of production of the E90/1/2/3).

[Deleted User]

Augeo wrote: »

Currently spinning about in a Mercedes c200, 1.5-litre turbocharged petrol engine... 48-volt mild hybrid thing.
Under 200bhp .... A great drive. ......

My idea of a great all rounder 😍

Took 12 gallons to brim it after doing 480 miles..... Properly mixed driving.

All things considered, a good all rounder.

wotzgoingon

Augeo wrote: »

Took 12 gallons to brim it after doing 480 miles..... Properly mixed driving.

All things considered, a good all rounder.

Where are you based. With your gallons and miles.

Charles Babbage

wotzgoingon wrote: »

Where are you based. With your gallons and miles.

Last century?

[Deleted User]

wotzgoingon wrote: »

Where are you based. With your gallons and miles.

Well the distance was clocked up in England

I find mpg and l/100km both fairly intuitive but I do default to mpg generally.

Wibbs

wotzgoingon wrote: »

Where are you based. With your gallons and miles.

Stop. Recently I got a bluetooth doodah that plugs into my ECU and transmits the data to an app. Set it all up, calibrated the GPs an the like, but then noticed it defaulted to litres and kilometres, so figured I'd leave it as is and force my brain into this century.

Though given I've been driving cars with only kms on the speedo since the late 90's it's only in the last few years I don't automatically convert to mph in my head, so this litres to the kilometre lark could take some time. The above is largely double dutch to me. :eek::D

Interslice

My new renhall trafaro is in mph with a digital speedo so no little kmh to squint at. Made me realize I'm completely switch to km/hr. Must figure out how to change it. Still fairly stuck on mpg for the fuel though.

Wibbs

Interslice wrote: »

Still fairly stuck on mpg for the fuel though.

Same here IS. I've some excuse at least. Old dog, new tricks kinda thing.

Leonard Hofstadter

Can't do l/100 km either, even if I had a car with everything in kilometres (which I don't) I'd be converting back to mpg. I can do speeds and distances in kilometres, and in time we'll all be driving electric so for nostalgia's sake as much as anything else, I'm sticking with the old fashioned (but much easier to understand) way for fuel consumption :pac:!

Interslice

It's not so much a metric imperial thing. Km per litre I would get my head around alot sooner. I know how many litres are in the tank. I don't want to have to do maths to figure how far that gets. L per 100km is arseways to me.

Leonard Hofstadter

Exactly. If it was km/l I'm sure I would have changed, 1 km/l is exactly 2.82481 mpg, so dividing by 3 is a rough approximation in the same way 5 miles is about 8 km (1 mile is exactly 1.609344 kilometres), I'm a maths and facts person so I need to quantify and in some sense measure everything, so any system where I can't go from one to the other in my head (even approximately) is a non-runner :pac:.

Oddly enough some metric countries, such as Japan actually do use km/l for fuel consumption. I never understood how or why it was decided that we would do it differently in Europe, the whole point of metric was to make measurements standardised across the world, instead we now have two systems in both metric and imperial (a gallon here and the UK is 4.54609 litres, but that's 1.20095 times bigger than a US gallon) for fuel economy :pac::D.

joujoujou

Oddly enough, neither mpg nor km/l is fuel consumption per se. :P

[Deleted User]

Leonard Hofstadter wrote: »

............ I'm a maths and facts person so I need to quantify and in some sense measure everything, so any system where I can't go from one to the other in my head (even approximately) is a non-runner :pac:...........

In my recent 40mpg example I knew I'd travelled 480 miles. As I was filling the tank and passed 45.4 l I was like, that's 10 gallons, it clicked out 9 litres lately at approx the 12 gallon point so intuitively it was 40mpg.

CIP4

I don’t have much knowledge on BMWs so quick question on them. The F30 320d from 2015 ish onwards what’s that like engine and car reliability wise ? As I remember all the E90 N47 horror stories. Does that engine still run a timing chain ?

[Deleted User]

CIP4 wrote: »

....... Does that engine still run a timing chain ?

Yup.
Improved valve train design etc etc over the n47 you mention.

GustavoFring

CIP4 wrote: »

I don’t have much knowledge on BMWs so quick question on them. The F30 320d from 2015 ish onwards what’s that like engine and car reliability wise ? As I remember all the E90 N47 horror stories. Does that engine still run a timing chain ?

Buy a 330/335 instead;)

CIP4

GustavoFring wrote: »

Buy a 330/335 instead;)

180BHP and 380NM sounds like plenty of power for a mid sized diesel saloon. Was your blue one a 330d also ?

Big Nasty

335d X-Drive Sport Touring in Estoril Blue with tan leather

Wailin

CIP4 wrote: »

I don’t have much knowledge on BMWs so quick question on them. The F30 320d from 2015 ish onwards what’s that like engine and car reliability wise ? As I remember all the E90 N47 horror stories. Does that engine still run a timing chain ?

That's the B47 engine cip, not N47. No timing chain issues with that particular engine and seems pretty reliable.