BMW 3.0 liter diesel: any good?

Please share your good and bad experiences about the 3.0 liter diesel as
found in the 330 d or 530 d.
I'm considering to buy a 330 xd built in 2001 with 100,000 kilometers and I
don't want to do a mistake.
Thanks for replying

--
Best regards.
Giovanni Tarantino
Switzerland
1997 Audi A4 2.8 Q 235,000 km (145,000 miles)
1997 BMW 535i 234,000 km (144,000 miles)

I've had a 330d here in the UK for a couple of years and it is a fantastic
car. Mine is a 2001 model and they've increased the engine power in later
models so I hate to think what the power in those is like, mine goes fast
enough and returns, on average 38 mpg. You do know its a diesel at low revs
but only just! It just has a slight bit of roughness at idle but I wonder if
that's because mine is an automatic and hence the engine is under some load
all the time? I would recommend it to anyone, it's economical to run and
service, requiring a visit for maintenance to the dealership only slightly
more often than my previous 325i (on average every 13500 miles as against
15000 for the 325). If you want power and economy get a 330d, I've seen it
called a M3 catcher and I can believe it!

Steve Ord


"GT" > wrote in message
...
> Please share your good and bad experiences about the 3.0 liter diesel as
> found in the 330 d or 530 d.
> I'm considering to buy a 330 xd built in 2001 with 100,000 kilometers and
> I
> don't want to do a mistake.
> Thanks for replying
>
> --
> Best regards.
> Giovanni Tarantino
> Switzerland
> 1997 Audi A4 2.8 Q 235,000 km (145,000 miles)
> 1997 BMW 535i 234,000 km (144,000 miles)
>
>

I have a 2001 330d, with 60k miles on it. excellent in almost every
way. Mine's a manual so I normally get around 43-45 mpg. The only draw
back is the 4500 redline. Acceleration starts to slow over the 4000
mark, so its driving behaviour is very different to a petrol engine.
Flexibility with low rpm torque on theother hand is superb. Pulling
from 800 rpm or so in all gears.
PyroJames.
Where I like, when I like, in whatever I like to wear.

"Jürgen Schrader" > wrote in message
...
>
> Then petrol prices: here in germany we talk about diesel per litre
> 90cent, petrol is some 1,05 euros

For some reason (that I do not know) diesel is actually more expensive
in the US. This is what makes all the difference.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp

> Here the recent 3litre diesel is -in practical use- more powerful as
> the 3-litre-231hp-petrol has ever been. Guess, why the new 3-litre
> now has 258hp??? The new 3-litre diesel has 500NM torque. at
> 2000rpm. Being used to that, the 3-litre petrol is -in comparison-
> weak. At the former one, ourt point of discussion, delivers 410NM
> from 1750-3500rpm. And even the former one came with 390.

From a pure power perspective, the diesel is only more powerful
because of the forced induction. Add a turbo to the gas engine and it
will be more powerful still. Because of the diesels sluggish nature
when normally aspirated, a turbo is a necessity to provide comparable
performance. Don't get me wrong. I like turbos. They allow good
economy and good performance from the same engine.

>
> The petrol engine needs at least 30% more petrol. So, here the
> petrol has no real good position in comparison to a strong
> turbo-diesel. I owned a 99 530d Touring and recent a 2003 530d A
> Touring, except for the automatic it is a great engine and I would
> never change to a 530i.

From a pure economy perspective, diesel fuel has a higher potential
energy (more BTUs per unit) than gasoline. So if the costs for diesel
is the same or less, you would be ahead with a diesel. As I mentioned
earlier, here in the US the fuel is actually more expensive than
gasoline, which makes the economy less (or even negative).

-Fred W

There are two other things that make a diesel more efficient. The
compression ratio is higher so that the volumetric efficiency of the
engine is fundamentally higher, and there are no pumping losses
associated with throttling for part load conditions.
PyroJames
Where I like, when I like, in whatever I like to wear.

"PyroJames" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> There are two other things that make a diesel more efficient. The
> compression ratio is higher so that the volumetric efficiency of the
> engine is fundamentally higher, and there are no pumping losses
> associated with throttling for part load conditions.

....which is not an issue with BMW engines with valvetronic throttles
either.

"The Malt Hound" <Malt_Hound@*no spam please*yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
>
> "Jürgen Schrader" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Then petrol prices: here in germany we talk about diesel per litre
>> 90cent, petrol is some 1,05 euros
>
> For some reason (that I do not know) diesel is actually more expensive in
> the US. This is what makes all the difference.
>

The cost of diesel fuel is also higher than petrol in the UK.

Huw

A U.S. car book, I think it was Autoweek, tried one in Michigan that BMW had
brought into the U.S. (not sold here - image clash) and the writer almost
wet his pants with excitement about how good it was.

- GRL


"GT" > wrote in message
...
> Please share your good and bad experiences about the 3.0 liter diesel as
> found in the 330 d or 530 d.
> I'm considering to buy a 330 xd built in 2001 with 100,000 kilometers and
> I
> don't want to do a mistake.
> Thanks for replying
>
> --
> Best regards.
> Giovanni Tarantino
> Switzerland
> 1997 Audi A4 2.8 Q 235,000 km (145,000 miles)
> 1997 BMW 535i 234,000 km (144,000 miles)
>
>

"GRL" > wrote in message
...
> Diesels don't have lower emissions of oxides of nitrogen than gas engines.
> They have higher. That is why they may, in fact, get forced out the U.S.
> market if the eco--wackos have their way. The Europeans don't care as much
> about that.
>

Wrong. Regulations are tightening in this area in big steps. This is why
modern diesels have cooler combustion, later injection timing and cooled
exhaust gas recirculation [yuk!]. Also many have unregulated oxidation
catalytic converters. In fact most modern diesels have all of these combined
with ultra low sulphur fuel and, increasingly, particle filtration.

Huw

"GRL" > wrote in message
...
>A U.S. car book, I think it was Autoweek, tried one in Michigan that BMW
>had brought into the U.S. (not sold here - image clash) and the writer
>almost wet his pants with excitement about how good it was.

That's not true. The 535d gets good reviews here for the powerplant in
comparison to where diesel engines used to be, but less than exciting
reviews for the performance.

I can't think of one review in America in which the writer preferred BMW's
new diesels over the "instant on' performance of the petrol engines. Mostly
they think it cool that BMW can make diesel engines this good. Not simply
engines this good.