300TTto545

Uh. 60 MPG is an EPA number (that changed in 2008 for all cars). It is a federal government number - it is not a Toyota claim. Also - an EPA rating of 60 mpg and real world 50 mpg is roughly 15% off. So it is similar to 24 mpg getting 21 mpg - sound like your average 545 owner (or even better)? In the end of the day a car with 60 mpg EPA will generally do better than a car with 30 mpg EPA. It may not be twice as good but it will be far better.

Also - efficiency aside - the NOx numbers from a Prius are markedly lower than a BMW diesel - there really is no comparison. Even the models with US emissions coming still have far more NOx. The Prius meets super strict ULEV standards that the diesels will not meet. And again - these are not Toyota claims - they are government numbers. (Prius <.02 g/mile vs 520d .20 g/km)

Any chance of 120d, 320d or 520d coming to the US? Probably not. So in the US - the question is moot. The problem is that the emissions controls will add to the cost and it may be hard to justify the price for a lightly powered car.

I now drive a Civic Hybrid - I get about 55 mpg - just a bit higher than EPA. I am waiting for a 120d with mild hybrid features - BMW are you listening?

Ricracing

It may be underpowered compared to a 535i or an d, but compared to 520i it's overpowered
and the 520d also in practice faster than a 523i or even a 525i (US 528i).

It's not the 177 hp but the 350 Nm at 1750 - 2500 rpm which makes all the difference.

The new turbo diesel engines are amazing - they sure are worth a test drive!

UK 5 Series

Not exactly true. The 520d is not faster than a 523i or 525i. Agreed the torque is better, but the bhp is almost 25% greater in the 525i so although the 520d could maintain better surge in a higher gear, the 525i would simply need to drop a gear to leave the 520d behind.

To imply that the 520d is underpowered however (as some others have) is laughable. You're right that it would leave a 520i for dead and in everyday driving it is a truly great car. But when comparing to a 6 cylinder petrol, you can argue a strong case on MPG, but not on performance.

zx97

Should got mine within two weeks now :-)

BrianTx5

This story was on the Yahoo website this morning.

http://www.technoride.com/2008/03/bmw_dies...ius_in_econ.php

Lancaster

The 60mpg I quoted was not a federal government number. Those numbers have no relevance over here. I was wrong to quote 60+mpg though - they specifically claim 65.7mpg in the UK. Remember our gallons are bigger than yours so you need to look at my comparisons and not just the bare numbers.


To fully illustrate the difference between this blatant lie and reality, I've pasted a quote about the Prius from an "Honest John" review - a reviewer I have found to be reliable over the years:

"The process is at its best in moving traffic that alternately slows speeds up and slows down, as in the current M25 contraflows near Heathrow. The slowing down allows regeneration of energy which the systems then use to save fuel. Alternatively, if the contraflow is moving steadily and you have already driven some distance that day to store up some energy, you can set the cruise control to 40mph, press the EV button, and watch your average mpg rise considerably. Driving regeneratively for my first 1,000 miles or so, I managed over 58mpg.

Unfortunately you don’t do so well when you have to travel long distance on the motorway and time is of the essence. Then you experience very little regeneration so the consumption you get is effectively that of an efficient 1.5 litre engine driving a 1,300kg car with an extremely low Cd of 0.26. I tend to manage 40 – 45mpg."

Overall, my colleagues are getting around 48mpg and they are trying to drive in a way which will justify their buying decision. That's a shortfall of 27%. Ouch.

I think a stretch of 24 to 21 mpg is very, very different to a stretch of 65.7 to 48 mpg.

Point taken about the NOX though and the Civic Hybrid sounds superior to the Prius both in real numbers and honesty.

Comparing the Prius and 520d again, I wonder which is worse for the environment - 7 miles less per gallon of fuel or the higher NOX.

colejl

Sssshh! Darling has thought of NOx emissions... YET!!!! Too busy obsessed with CO2...

timbob

In the 0-60 range the 520d is quicker than the 523i and no dropping gears will help here. Also in real world driving where acceleration in the 50-75mph band for overtaking is important, the 520d is quicker in 4th than the 523i and the 525i and pretty much on a par with the 530i. I suppose if you are a really keen driver you may improve the acceleration of the petrol cars by dropping to 3rd, but how many of us do this in real life. Bear in mind also that the 523i is already several thousand pounds more expensive.

The 520d is certainly not sluggish by any comparison. 0-60 in 8.5 seconds and a top speed of 139mph. More than enough to satisfy most people. I am swapping from a Saab 9-5 and the 520d performance knocks spots off both the 9-5 2.0litre and 2.3litre turbo petrol models and they haven't exactly got a slow image.

BMW have done a really good job with this engine. Look at the competition, as I have recently, and no-one comes close. Not Mercedes, Audi, VW, Volvo, Saab, nobody has a small diesel that produces performance and economy on a large car which is in the same league as the 520d.

You might have guessed I'm waiting for delivery of one

DanP

Reportedly, the process for mining the nickel used in the Prius batteries is such an environmental catastrophe that it negates the gas savings you get from the car. If true, then the answer to your question is that the 520d is better for the environment.

alpinewhite

I smell BS