|
|
03-28-2014, 05:55 PM | #1 |
Private
1
Rep 67
Posts |
525D.
I have a 520d and it seems a little underpowered on occasion. However, this is my work horse - I have something more fun for the weekends - and a four cylinder engine just feels appropriate. Lower tax, insurance etc.
Loads of debates on here as to 530/35d or 520d but no one mentions the 525d. As I understand these days it is a 520 with multiple turbos and more mid range oomph. Has anyone driven one? Would be interested in your feedback. |
04-02-2014, 02:53 AM | #2 | |
Major
200
Rep 1,207
Posts |
Quote:
I had a new 520d last year; but was not too happy with the performance (big car, small engine syndrome) - and I thought of getting the performance pack fitted to the 520d. Read some reviews on the performance pack, and most people said that it compared with a 525d (just fell short). Since I could not find a 520d with performance pack; the dealer managed to find a 525d to test drive. It is definitely better than 520d. It seemed to rev a bit more freely (possibly perception); but definitely had a bit more grunt at higher revs. I eventually went the whole hog and got myself a 535d.
__________________
---
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-02-2014, 06:19 AM | #3 |
Second Lieutenant
26
Rep 267
Posts |
Certainly impressed with the 325d loaner I had when my old 320d was in for servicing a year back - really had some urge !
__________________
M140i LCI-2 is the 16th BMW since 1977 ....
320i *2, 323i, 520i *2, 540i, 535i, 840i, E36 M5, 328i, 530i, 320d, 535d, M135i, M140i * 2 |
Appreciate
0
|
04-02-2014, 06:28 AM | #4 |
Major
200
Rep 1,207
Posts |
How old was this 325d? The older generation 325s were actually 330s (that is 6 cyl 3.0L engine) but programmed as 325; compared to the new-gen 325/525 which are actually 4-cyliner (2.0L) engines uprated to perform as 2.5L.
__________________
---
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-02-2014, 08:38 AM | #5 |
Second Lieutenant
26
Rep 267
Posts |
Cant remember the Reg # - but it was early-2012 I had it - mileage was pretty low .... but take your point, cos I now vaguely recall the chap said it was a six-cyl ....
__________________
M140i LCI-2 is the 16th BMW since 1977 ....
320i *2, 323i, 520i *2, 540i, 535i, 840i, E36 M5, 328i, 530i, 320d, 535d, M135i, M140i * 2 |
Appreciate
0
|
04-02-2014, 03:53 PM | #6 |
Second Lieutenant
42
Rep 208
Posts |
I have a 525d F11. Test drove a 520d which was underpowered. The 530d of course is great, but was a lot worse on fuel, but also didn't have the same pickup as the 525d with it's twin turbo setup. I average about 43mpg, can get 48mpg at 78mph on the motorway (cruise on) and seen up to 54mpg on a 100 miles A class road run.
If it was my only car I'd have the 535d, but I have a Z4M for fun, performance and noise. So the 525d is the perfect compromise with regards to performance and running costs. The only negative is cold morning starts and in 1st or 2nd gear traffic, once into 3rd and above it's very refined. 525d doesn't make sense as a new buy though, too big a gap from the 520d and to close to the 530d. |
Appreciate
0
|
04-02-2014, 05:22 PM | #7 |
Captain
18
Rep 618
Posts |
Now my 530d is begining to run in (just over 7k now), I have averaged a touch over 40 mpg per tank (38.7 overall just now though). So there really isn't a LOT in the fuel consumption difference between the 525d and the 530d by the sounds of it. In fact, not a lot between the 520d either, when you look at the stats on Fuelly (only about 5 mpg between the 530d and 520d).
Of course, there are MANY factors that can determine the fuel consumption. |
Appreciate
0
|
04-03-2014, 02:17 AM | #8 | |
Second Lieutenant
42
Rep 208
Posts |
Quote:
Hopefully the gap is closer on the new model, the 8 speed box might be helping too. But for me, the 525d was a no brainer as a used buy. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-03-2014, 03:24 AM | #9 |
Captain
18
Rep 618
Posts |
Yeah, I remember looking at BMW's back when the E61 was out, and basically writing off the 530d as a pointless motor at the time as it didn't provide the fuel economy to make up for the fact it wasn't a petrol, lol.
The F10/11 is a different prospect though. The closeness between the 520d / 525d and 530d in real world fuel economy made it a difficult proposition for me to not pick the 6 cylinder one. |
Appreciate
0
|
04-03-2014, 11:01 AM | #11 |
New Member
2
Rep 16
Posts |
I cannot compare the 4 cyl 520 to the 525 as I've not driven the 520 however I've owned both the older 6 cyl 525d in E61 form and the new 4 cyl version. From my experience the 4 cyl version mates very well to the 8 speed auto along with two separate turbo's small and variable large enabling pretty rapid progress.
You'll notice the difference at the higher speed range (well beyond uk limits) where the extra lung capacity of the 6 cyl has the edge. Real life Fuel consumption I would say the same except on the motorway cruise where the 4 cyl is marginally better. |
Appreciate
0
|
04-03-2014, 03:03 PM | #12 |
Private
1
Rep 67
Posts |
Thank you - excellent advice from all of you.
I used to have a phaeton a few years ago and the incredible running costs combined with my high mileage scared me away from big diesels. Looks like I need to test drive an F11 530 though! Happy Days! |
Appreciate
0
|
04-03-2014, 03:53 PM | #13 |
Private First Class
18
Rep 186
Posts |
Don't do it.. You'll end up buying one!
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|