2012 BMW 550dx (AWD only)

[sportyaccordy]

Seriously?

A car which for all intents and purposes is as fast as the V8 gasser, but gets 12mpg more? 

Not interesting?  Really? 

Those are imperial gallons, it's ~30MPG in the US, which is good, but still not worth the premium or sacrifices over the 535i/550i

Speed isn't everything. I wouldn't mind a diesel motor in something like a Corolla, but def not a $80K performance car

[Galaxy]

Those are imperial gallons, it's ~30MPG in the US, which is good, but still not worth the premium or sacrifices over the 535i/550i

Speed isn't everything. I wouldn't mind a diesel motor in something like a Corolla, but def not a $80K performance car

No, I made sure to convert to US gallons. 6.3L per 100km comes to 37.3 mpg US.

[sportyaccordy]

Oh I was looking at the wrong vehicle. Anyways again, nobody is going to buy an 80K car for better gas mileage. The jump would save the average driver a whopping $1000 a year (where they would probably be spending 25-30K just to own/insure/fuel it), and come with all the downsides of a diesel, which are very relevant in a performance vehicle.

Its one of those ideas people love to talk about on the internet, but decide against and go with something more conventional. If anything, Bimmer should be looking to bring over the smaller diesel engines in new college grad trim Minis/1s/3s.

[Xer0]

Oh I was looking at the wrong vehicle. Anyways again, nobody is going to buy an 80K car for better gas mileage. The jump would save the average driver a whopping $1000 a year (where they would probably be spending 25-30K just to own/insure/fuel it), and come with all the downsides of a diesel, which are very relevant in a performance vehicle.

Its one of those ideas people love to talk about on the internet, but decide against and go with something more conventional. If anything, Bimmer should be looking to bring over the smaller diesel engines in new college grad trim Minis/1s/3s.

They don't care about gas mileage but they care about the inconvenience about going to the gas station constantly.

But I agree, this car is cool but doesn't really make much sense.  Besides, that's on the European system, I don't doubt our numbers are going to be much smaller.

[Raza]

Seriously?

A car which for all intents and purposes is as fast as the V8 gasser, but gets 12mpg more? 

Not interesting?  Really? 

I agree.  But I'd like it more if it were RWD with a 6 speed stick.

[Colonel Cadillac]

Oh I was looking at the wrong vehicle. Anyways again, nobody is going to buy an 80K car for better gas mileage. The jump would save the average driver a whopping $1000 a year (where they would probably be spending 25-30K just to own/insure/fuel it), and come with all the downsides of a diesel, which are very relevant in a performance vehicle.

Its one of those ideas people love to talk about on the internet, but decide against and go with something more conventional. If anything, Bimmer should be looking to bring over the smaller diesel engines in new college grad trim Minis/1s/3s.

25-30k a year is a really big stretch.

[CALL_911]

Bingo.

Plus, if you're spending $70k+ on a sports sedan, by definition you don't (or shouldn't) care about fuel economy (and as we all know, at least in the US, the cost premium for a diesel engine usually has a very long if not indeterminate payback period). And why invite the throttle lag, racket, and mess?

Yeah. Look, in a vacuum, without the monetary equation in the picture, I think it's cool. I just don't see it being a particularly economical option.

[850CSi]

AWD BMWs  


OTOH I'll likely never buy a gasoline-powered BMW made after my car because they're all turbocharged. I can stomach a diesel, though. Imagine my chagrin when I was customizing a 528i the other day only to remember that a cool $46k bought me a car that weighs 3700 lbs with 4 cylinders and a 2-liter displacement.  

[CALL_911]

AWD BMWs  


OTOH I'll likely never buy a gasoline-powered BMW made after my car because they're all turbocharged. I can stomach a diesel, though. Imagine my chagrin when I was customizing a 528i the other day only to remember that a cool $46k bought me a car that weighs 3700 lbs with 4 cylinders and a 2-liter displacement.  

*with 240 horsepower, 256 lb/ft of torque. Not to mention that the 4-cylinder outguns the previous N52. Yeah, seems like a shitty deal compared to the slower, less powerful, equally costly I6 528i.

I like the N52 better, and I'm with you in the "BMWs should have N/A I6s" camp. But to insinuate that the 528i is suddenly a shitty deal after the inception of the N20 is just ridiculous.

Oh, and lets not forget the Audi A6 2.0T.

[68_427]

AWD BMWs 


OTOH I'll likely never buy a gasoline-powered BMW made after my car because they're all turbocharged. I can stomach a diesel, though. Imagine my chagrin when I was customizing a 528i the other day only to remember that a cool $46k bought me a car that weighs 3700 lbs with 4 cylinders and a 2-liter displacement. 

The new 3 series with that engine and 8 speed auto gets 35mpg.  And it's faster than your car.

[850CSi]

The new 3 series with that engine and 8 speed auto gets 35mpg.  And it's faster than your car.

Don't care. Never met a turbocharged engine I liked, including the N54.*

Not to mention that gaining 5mpg over 7 years and an all-new model really isn't very impressive.

[CALL_911]

I suppose that's where we differ. I love my car's 2.0T.

But I see your point, I don't know how I'd feel about it in, for instance, an E90.

[850CSi]

Every time I drove my A4 in the city, I wanted to swing an axe at my left leg to rid myself of the agony.

My dad's Countryman S has a very similar engine to the 528i's, I believe. It pulls nicely and gets great mileage.

... and I fucking hate it (the engine).

[CALL_911]

Nope, IIRC, the Countryman S has the old 1.6L, which is completely unrelated to the N20.

I've only driven one Cooper S with that 1.6L, it was pretty laggy, but it was a lot of fun.

[Laconian]

Heh heh heh, the fuel economy went from 4 l/100km to 40 instantly.

[CALL_911]

On an unrelated note, is your dad's Countryman a stick?

[850CSi]

On an unrelated note, is your dad's Countryman a stick?

yeah. one of the reasons he bought it was it was one of the few stick cars he could find with an SUV-ish seating position

i think it was a midlife crisis thing with him. it really does make great mileage though apparently.

[nickdrinkwater]

http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/261082/

RWD version available in the UK.  Like the look of this one!

[Raza]

AWD BMWs  


OTOH I'll likely never buy a gasoline-powered BMW made after my car because they're all turbocharged. I can stomach a diesel, though. Imagine my chagrin when I was customizing a 528i the other day only to remember that a cool $46k bought me a car that weighs 3700 lbs with 4 cylinders and a 2-liter displacement.  

[sportyaccordy]

25-30k a year is a really big stretch.

On an 80k car? How do you figure? Financing alone at typical rates today would tack on an extra couple grand. Then sales tax. Then the $2-3K/yr in gas. Insurance. Consumables... point being, $1K a year out of even $20K/yr is not gonna be enough to take someone out of a 550i and put them into a 550d. If they were going to buy a 550d they were never going to buy a 550i

[Hachee]

Bingo.

Plus, if you're spending $70k+ on a sports sedan, by definition you don't (or shouldn't) care about fuel economy (and as we all know, at least in the US, the cost premium for a diesel engine usually has a very long if not indeterminate payback period). And why invite the throttle lag, racket, and mess?

It's not always about the money, even if you're buying an expensive car.  Forget for a second preferences on how a car drives, because the gas and diesels WILL drive differently, even if the performance is similar.  There are people who just want to consume less fuel and have better range, even if they're not saving all that much money in the long run.

My first X5 (3.0) was gas, and the gas mileage sucked.  I replaced it with a diesel, because I thought if I could get 20% better mileage, why wouldn't I?  

As for living with a diesel, I can tell you that it never smells, and there's no diesel smoke or soot.  Performance is fantastic.  But there are times (noticeable at certain speeds) I do not like the sound, getting diesel fuel is occassionally problematic, and it's annoying when the price is higher than premium.  

And I find these mileage numbers to be wildly optimistic.  37 average MPG for this 550?   Bullshit.  My X5 might be heavier, but I can tell you that in pure highway driving, maybe you'll see 30 for a trip - maybe.  And local suburban average is much more like high teens.  Still better than gas.

As for this car, it does seem a bit like overkill, and I can't imagine that they'll sell a lot, but don't we want these crazy choices from a company like BMW?  They don't sell many 550i's either, but for those who want them, I'm glad they're offered.



 

[Submariner]

Bingo.

Plus, if you're spending $70k+ on a sports sedan, by definition you don't (or shouldn't) care about fuel economy (and as we all know, at least in the US, the cost premium for a diesel engine usually has a very long if not indeterminate payback period). And why invite the throttle lag, racket, and mess?

My aunt has a diesel X5.  The engine is barely audible standing right in front of it.  It's smooth as silk to drive, too. 

But I agree, buying it for the sake of cost savings is silly.  As you said, most diesels cost a good deal more than their petrol counterparts.  If they both cost the same, an argument for diesel could be made (or if gas was taxed like it is in Europe) but right now, those factors are not in play.

[cawimmer430]

AWD BMWs 

With so much torque, RWD won't cut it. I think they were smart to offer these in AWD only.

I was at BMW Welt today and I was standing next to the new M5 and having a conversation with an employee who works in one of their engineering department. He told me that a number of people are asking about chip-tuning the new M5 (since we all know that 560-horsepower V8 Biturbo is so underpowered).

His question is: WHY?

Sounds like something BMW and Driver magazine would wish for since a 0-60 time of 4.2 seconds is pathetic. An extra 50-hp to 560-hp will cut that down to 4.1 seconds - now that is awesome! 4.2 seconds = crap / 4.1 seconds = good! 

According to this guy, giving the M5 more power won't do shit to it since 560-hp and torque figure is the optimal balance between performance, economy and getting all that power down using only the rear wheels.

[nickdrinkwater]

With so much torque, RWD won't cut it. I think they were smart to offer these in AWD only.

I was at BMW Welt today and I was standing next to the new M5 and having a conversation with an employee who works in one of their engineering department. He told me that a number of people are asking about chip-tuning the new M5 (since we all know that 560-horsepower V8 Biturbo is so underpowered).

His question is: WHY?

Sounds like something BMW and Driver magazine would wish for since a 0-60 time of 4.2 seconds is pathetic. An extra 50-hp to 560-hp will cut that down to 4.1 seconds - now that is awesome! 4.2 seconds = crap / 4.1 seconds = good! 

According to this guy, giving the M5 more power won't do shit to it since 560-hp and torque figure is the optimal balance between performance, economy and getting all that power down using only the rear wheels.

http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/261082/

RWD version available in the UK.  Like the look of this one!

It must be a marketing decision as they wouldn't do it in RWD if it couldn't handle the torque.

[cawimmer430]

It must be a marketing decision as they wouldn't do it in RWD if it couldn't handle the torque.

Perhaps the UK article is wrong...

[Laconian]

With so much torque, RWD won't cut it. I think they were smart to offer these in AWD only.

I was at BMW Welt today and I was standing next to the new M5 and having a conversation with an employee who works in one of their engineering department. He told me that a number of people are asking about chip-tuning the new M5 (since we all know that 560-horsepower V8 Biturbo is so underpowered).

His question is: WHY?

Sounds like something BMW and Driver magazine would wish for since a 0-60 time of 4.2 seconds is pathetic. An extra 50-hp to 560-hp will cut that down to 4.1 seconds - now that is awesome! 4.2 seconds = crap / 4.1 seconds = good! 

According to this guy, giving the M5 more power won't do shit to it since 560-hp and torque figure is the optimal balance between performance, economy and getting all that power down using only the rear wheels.

"Why?" He's seriously asking why?

So much of expensive car buying is about buying WAY more than you actually use. Making more power than you actually can put down is the same thing. Dyno numbers, bragging rights, ePenis Internetry.

[Colonel Cadillac]

On an 80k car? How do you figure? Financing alone at typical rates today would tack on an extra couple grand. Then sales tax. Then the $2-3K/yr in gas. Insurance. Consumables... point being, $1K a year out of even $20K/yr is not gonna be enough to take someone out of a 550i and put them into a 550d. If they were going to buy a 550d they were never going to buy a 550i

Add your numbers up and see if it even gets close to $20,000 a year. It won't. And don't include financing. Nobody finances an $80k car.

[Galaxy]

And I find these mileage numbers to be wildly optimistic.  37 average MPG for this 550?   Bullshit.  My X5 might be heavier, but I can tell you that in pure highway driving, maybe you'll see 30 for a trip - maybe.  And local suburban average is much more like high teens.  Still better than gas.

For what it's worth, according to the Euro norm, the X5 30d get a highway rating of 7.4L7100km (31.7 mpg US), whereas the 530d Xdrive gets 5.5 (42.7 mpg US) , even though it has a tad more hp.

[sportyaccordy]

Add your numbers up and see if it even gets close to $20,000 a year. It won't. And don't include financing. Nobody finances an $80k car.

A lease on one of these things is still a cool $1000/mo when it's all said and done.

Bottom line nobody is buying a 550d to save money on anything.

[cawimmer430]

"Why?" He's seriously asking why?

So much of expensive car buying is about buying WAY more than you actually use. Making more power than you actually can put down is the same thing. Dyno numbers, bragging rights, ePenis Internetry.

It does make sense to me.

The new M5 has been tested and perfected by BMW to perform as it does.

Why on earth would someone want to ruin that feature with more "useless" horsepower? It might bring the 0-60 and 1/4 mile time down, but race it on the track and that extra power - without appropriate suspension and gearing tuning - will most likely work against it.