2004 BMW 5 Series 535d Sport from UK and Ireland - Comments

No faults (would expect nothing less at this early stage)

First off, what an engine. It's actually the 3.0 turbodiesel from the 530d, but with twin sequential turbochargers (one small for low speed response and one large for top end shove). The result is 272 bhp and a staggering 413 lb/ft of torque with something daft like 390 of it available from just 1500 RPM. Unfortunately it is linked to an auto-box (BMW don't currently have a manual capable of handling the torque), but it's the latest all singing, all dancing 6 speed unit and works superbly. Oh, and it pulls hard right through to 5,000 RPM too which is in my experience, unique for a diesel.

On the road it's incredible. 0-60 in under 6 seconds, and I'm averaging 34 mpg so far. I cannot think of another comparable car with this kind of grunt that can get within 10 mpg of that. Doing 1,000 miles a week, these savings will add up. More importantly though it is responsive, has seemingly endless shove on tap when you ask for it, and it sounds wonderful. Just like a straight six petrol BMW to be quite honest. With BMW's low depreciation, particularly on the 6 cylinder diesels, I suspect this will be a very cheap car to own, despite the purchase price which quite frankly still has me quivering when the finance payment comes out every month.

The car handles tidily, although the steering lacks feel and the brakes feel a tad over-servoed. That said, this is not a back road blaster, but a high speed motorway cruiser and at that it excels. Noise levels are near silent, and in 6th at 70 mph, it's showing around 2,200 RPM on the rev counter. Right on peak torque incidentally, meaning that it will howl past 100 mph with just a flex of the ankle. 70-100 mph it is the quickest car I have ever driven, and that includes an E36 M3 and a VW Golf Rallye

Superb as the car is, there are things I don't like about it. Apart from the steering and brake feel mentioned earlier, I still have reservations about the styling of the new BMW models for instance and the bulbous new 5 somehow lacks the elegance of the previous model. I also dislike the I-Drive system. It's much better than the one fitted to the 7 series I borrowed a year or two ago, and I have become used to it, but it strikes me as gimmicky and unnecessary. Not normally qualities you would associate with BMW.

To say I am happy with the car is an understatement.

I am sorry. but in top gear magazine (november 2004 the M5 issue) and the 0-60 is stated at 6.5 seconds not UNDER 6 please explain how your car can perform 10% better than manufacturers figures?

It is a fact that often manufacturers quote figures to be worse than they are, especially top speeds/performance, whereas MPG is often made to sound better than it is! For example, with reference to performance, I drove a Mazda Premacy people carrier last year. Mazda quote top speed to be 112mph, whereas it would do 118mph with absolutely no effort (you can feel when a car is running out of speed...) It was not down hill either... 5mph doesn't sound much I grant you, but it puts it on closer par with every rival.

To the commenter of 4th Feb, if you want to nit-pick then I'm happy to play along:

BMW claim a 0-62 mph time of 6.50 seconds. This means it accelerates from rest to 62 mph at an average of 9.54 mph per second. To get the 0-60 time we divide 60 by 9.54 which comes out at 6.29 seconds, assuming of course constant acceleration all the way through. In practice, aerodynamic drag means the car's acceleration will reduce as speeds climb which may increase the gap between the 0-60 and 0-62 times slightly (as we know the stated 0-62 time, this means it reduces the 0-60 time), but it shouldn't be enough to significantly reduce the outcome. Anyway, there's just over two tenths of your difference in hard figures. Still adrift, but not the half second discrepancy you claim.

The other factor, as the subsequent commenter correctly points out, is that ALL manufacturers understate the performance of their cars. The reason is simple - nobody sues for a car being quicker than claimed, whereas people would if it were not as quick as claimed.

Peter Tomalin of EVO concurred when he tested the car in issue 077 and said (and I quote) : "BMW claims a 0-62 time of 6.5 sec. And it wouldn't surprise me at all if that's a conservative claim. The 535d is disturbingly, disarmingly and certainly deceptively fast." And this is from the editor of a magazine which makes no qualms about its dislike of diesel engines.

Drive one and see for yourself! If this car doesn't crack 60 mph in under 6 seconds, I would be astonished! As would a lot of the "experts".

I have had my 535d SE saloon for a few days now, so I've only done about 250 miles (mixed commuting motorway and suburban roads) but the average mpg shown on the trip computer is less than 25. I hope this improves to the 30 plus most reviewers have indicated as the engine loosens up.

Trip computer MPG figures are no more than a rough approximation, even on BMWs. Comparing actual measured MPG over 60,000 miles on my 2002 320D, the trip computer used to indicate between 10% and 20% optimistic. On my 2001 525d auto, it indicates about 5% pessimistic. So try your 525D tank brim to tank brim (and don't forget to calibrate the odometer!) It should improve with age though, these engines are built very tight. It will be much better at 25,000 miles and will probably not peak out until 50,000 miles+

I have just completed 700 miles in my new 535d sport and believe it to be the best car in the real world. The performance is just fabulous. Although BMW claim a conservative 0 - 62mph in 6.5secs Auto Express Magazine has timed the car to 60mph from rest in 5.8secs. The fact that it will do 45mpg at a constant 56mph is just secondary. You don't buy a 535d for economy!

Just Completed my 1st 2000 miles in my 535D, carefully followed the running in rules. One run on 400 mile round trip returned 39MPG @70MPH (average)! - this was careful driving though. A recent trip of 150 miles was done in nearly the same time as I do with my 911! - This is a fast, but very comfortable bit of kit! The national speed limit is broken on the motorway @ about 1800 rpm and its overtaking capabilities are magnificent (very little if any lag from the turbos). I'm not a slow driver and have two sports cars (911+lotus) so beleive me when I say this car has to be driven to be beleived. Its off to europe soon and I have no doubt that the 155MPH will come up quite quickley.

That's incredible! All that massive torque and you still get great fuel economy. I wish we Americans had more turbo diesels, but VW is being nice about it.

If you were comparing the 535d when it's doing 70 mph at 2200rpm and you pushed down on the throttle to accelerate to 100 mph, and the m3 you did the same thing on the 3.0 litre of the 3.2 evo from 70-100 mph in 5th/6th then I agree with you that the 535d is faster, but if you meant someone who could drive and use the straight sixes power, accelerating from 3rd at 70 mph to 100 mph, then the 535d hasn't got a chance in the world to beat an m3 and accelerate faster to 100 mph or beyond! wake up, learn to drive! state facts, not dreams!

To the child who wrote the comment above:

Firstly have you driven an E36 M3 and a 535d back to back? If the answer is no, which I suspect it is, stop posting such drivel on this website.

If you rev the knackers off the M3 in an out and out drag race to a ton, it is probably quicker, but the 535 will achieve 98% of the same effort with a simple flex of the right ankle. When you are just "rolling it on" from say 70 mph, the M3 won't see the 535 for its Euro 4 compliant exhaust haze. In the real world, it is a significantly quicker car.

Perhaps it's you that needs to learn to drive, and understand that you cannot measure real road performance with 0-60 times and traffic light drag race results. I've held an international A race license for six years, so I do have a vague idea of what I'm doing behind the wheel.

Do you?

Funny how whenever someone gets a nice car and explains enthusiastically how good it really is, some of us are so jealous we don't want to believe it.

The 535d is the best diesel car in the world, period, it has the most powerful and flexible diesel engine in the world. But to say that it will beat the 3.0 litre e36 m3, you would have to assume 2 things first, there is a problem with the 286 bhp engine, second the person driving the m3 does not know how to make full use of the engines power band. the e36 m3 has more power than the 535d, greater power to weight ratio, wider powerband, compared to the 3 litre twin turbo diesel, which has a comparatively narrow powerband. it does 0-60 in 5.6 seconds, 70-100, under a competent drivers control, it will easily beat the 535d. unless the 535d has been tuned for even more power than it's 272bhp, it will not beat an m3.

Raziel.

I don't think you people are getting the point he is trying to make.

The guy means that if you had an M3 and a 535D rolling on the motorway in 5th/6th gear at 70mph along side each other, and you got both drivers to floor the throttle at the same time (without changing down into 3rd) the 535D would leave the M3 behind and that is a fact not a guess.

This is common with pretty much all diesel cars. Pick a 150bhp 2.0 diesel and a similar spec petrol car, roll them at 70mph and then floor them to 100, do it with 3.0litre cars, do it with 5litre cars (mmmmmmmm VW 5.0 v10 diesel) and the results are always the same, the diesel always wins!

We have a 530D at work (not driven the 535, but the boss has) and I've driven it a couple of times. It is incredible when you are driving along at 50mph for some roadworks on the motorway, as soon as you hit the "roadworks end" sign, flood the 530d and look how far behind all the other cars are... simply amazing.

Thanks for writing an interesting review praising the superb engine that BMW have developed (and I can only dream of owning) I am sorry that you have to listen to so much rubbish from 'wannabe boy racers'

There is no doubt about the efficiency of modern diesel engines. I do still prefer petrol in general, but despite owning a 1990 Carrera 4 (which is still enough powerful to blast most of modern diesel cars if driven above 4500 rpm) I intend to buy a 525d for everyday use. On a racetrack environment or drag racing a diesel engine does not provide the driver with the required broad rpm band, but on the way to the job around town I do believe that low rpm torque and fuel economy seems much more useful.

With particular reference to the E36 M3 comparisons, you are quite correct, the M3 does indeed have more bhp, and less weight.

Notice how I said more BHP. Have you *looked* at the torque figure? Or driven comparitive petrol / diesel cars? We have just finished running in our new 535d and having driven M3's, TT Supras etc for a number of years, I would happily put money on a 535d being quicker in-gear than an M3 at any sort of every-day driving speed.

Hell, I'll even let you decide which gear you want to start from!

BHP sells cars... torque wins races.

Now, take your "My saxo is quicker than your lotus because it's got NAWZ (sic) " comments back to the McDonalds car park and argue about it with your friends :o)