BMW 1-Series Forum (F20) 135i - 1Addicts.com > Second Generation 1 Series Forum > 2012 BMW 1-Series Sporthatch (F20) Discussion > 116d or 116d ED
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      08-15-2012, 03:33 PM   #1
ghostbmw
New Member
 
Drives: BMW
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Spain

Posts: 6
iTrader: (0)

116d or 116d ED

Hi guys,

After a couple of months reading you all (let me say that this is by far the most active forum for 1 Series I have seen in the web), I made the decission to join myself this forum. It was not easy as I had several problems with the register process (it seems that my IP was in a kind of blacklist or something like that), but finally I was able to complete the registration process, so here I am.

First of all, let me introduce myself, my name is Jose and I'm from Spain (since now my apologies from my english grammar mistakes...) and I will be the future owner of a BMW 1 Series 116d or 116d ED, still not sure.

Well, I'm about to order a new F20 in next days and I'm still have doubts between normal 116d an ED version. I know there have been some discussions about this, but I would like to ask you again because in Spain, both cars have exactly the same price, and also they have same taxes, etc... this is, money is not a factor to make the decission as both costs the same and we don't have (at least at this moment) city taxes for pollution or taxes like that.

My first decission, was to go for the ED version, as I saw that both (normal and ED), had the same power, same torquee, and ED was only 0.2 sec. slower in 0-100 acceleration (10.3 for the normal version and 10.5 for the ED one). But further research I saw that ED version seems to be significantly slower on the 80-120 kmh acceleration in 4th and 5th gear: 8.6 and 11.7 for the normal version, while the ED needs 10.2 and 14.2. So after discovering that, I changed my decission to the normal 116d. Anyway, after reading your comments one time and another, it seems that 116d ED owners are quite happy with the car... so, I have a serious doubt about the version to choose.

Taking that into account, and remember that money is not a factor in Spain which car you will go? Will you go for the 'extra' power of the normal 116d or will you go fot the ED version to take advantage of its reduced fuel consumption? My dealership advised me to order the normal 116d...

Any feedback, comments will be welcomed.

Thanks in advance guys!
ghostbmw is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-15-2012, 03:44 PM   #2
fuzzer
Private
 
Drives: In bits
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Scotland

Posts: 89
iTrader: (0)

I would order the normal 116d

If money isn't an option how about a 116i ?
fuzzer is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-15-2012, 04:36 PM   #3
orcomma
Second Lieutenant
 
orcomma's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 F20 116d Sport 5dr
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Manchester UK

Posts: 273
iTrader: (0)

the 116d uses a 2.0 litre N47 diesel engine

the 116dED uses the 1.6 litre diesel engine from the Mini

that's why there is slower in gear acceleration

I have a 116d Non-ED and I managed to achieve 64.4mpg UK (4.4 L/100km) driving at about 70mph on the motorway.

I find cruise control significantly reduces consumption on the motorway too, so I try and use that as often as possible.
orcomma is offline   United Kingdom
0
Reply With Quote
      08-15-2012, 05:55 PM   #4
ghostbmw
New Member
 
Drives: BMW
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Spain

Posts: 6
iTrader: (0)

Hi,

116i is actually same price in Spain than 116d and 116d ED, but I plan to do 25.000 km per year, so I discard the petrol option due to the running costs...

Thx
ghostbmw is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-16-2012, 12:40 AM   #5
Superspeed
Captain
 
Superspeed's Avatar
 
Drives: 640i, 120d, Cooper S
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Oslo, Norway

Posts: 859
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Welcome to the forum!
I haven't tested any of the two cars, so my point of view is entirely based on tech specs.
I am sure both are good engines, but to me the difference in consumption isn't big enough to justify the ED as long as there are more important qualities in the D.
Intermediate acceleration is an everyday quality that you enjoy each and every minute you are behind the weel. Not the (almost identical) consumption figures!

I know ED owners are happy with the car, and from the specs it is a good and competitive car.
But to me it would be a matter of driving pleasure. So I'd picked the 116D
__________________
[SIGPIC]"Never a boring car"
Some X'es: BMW Z3 2.8, DeTomaso Pantera, Porsche 928s, BMW 732i, BMW 323i, BMW 2002

Last edited by Superspeed; 08-16-2012 at 12:45 AM.
Superspeed is offline   Norway
0
Reply With Quote
      08-16-2012, 01:17 AM   #6
ovekvam
Colonel
 
Drives: F20 116i M-Sport
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Bryne, Norway

Posts: 2,114
iTrader: (0)

I also haven't driven there two cars, but in general smaller engines are better at running at low loads, like urban driving. If you do a lot of high speed highway driving, the bigger engine could match the consumption of a smaller one, since it can pull longer gears.

An extreme example of this was shown on TopGear, where a BMW M3 had lower fuel consumption than a Toyota Prius when following it around the TopGear test track (Prius driven flatout).
ovekvam is offline   Norway
0
Reply With Quote
      08-16-2012, 04:52 PM   #7
ghostbmw
New Member
 
Drives: BMW
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Spain

Posts: 6
iTrader: (0)

I tested the normal 116d, it was not a rocket, but I liked it, I think it will be enough, but I think also that less performance would make the car a bit slow... and that's why I was trying to ask some impressions about the ED..
ghostbmw is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-16-2012, 05:27 PM   #8
KoenG
First Lieutenant
 
Drives: E39 530i & F10 520d
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Europe

Posts: 319
iTrader: (0)

Torque seems to be the same at 260Nm over the same band, but probably the end reduction of the transmission is longer on ED. The 80-100km/h show a difference of about 20%. No doubt I'd go for the 116D which will feel an entire unit stronger. The few deciliters/100km are even smaller in real driving conditions, maybe entirely wiped out even.

Have you considered the 118d? Same engine but less restricted, providing a sensible amount of extra push. Since I understand that the 116D was not really satisfying you either (so forget about the ED all togheter)?
KoenG is offline   Belgium
0
Reply With Quote
      08-16-2012, 05:41 PM   #9
ghostbmw
New Member
 
Drives: BMW
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Spain

Posts: 6
iTrader: (0)

Hi Koeng,

Torquee is the same in both versions, as also end reduction is exactly the same (I checked that in the BMW's web page and catalogues), and that's why I don't understand very well that difference in 80-120km/h as they have same power, same torquee, same transmission... so it's seems too much difference considering they have similar specificiatios and the only difference in 0.4 litres less in the ED.

Regarding the 118d, the answer is Yes, I considered it, it's around 1.500 eur over the 116d. I discarded the 118d because the car is going to be our second car, driven mainly by my wife (who maybe will have enough with the ED version, but I want to drive sometimes the car). If it were the first car, I will go for the 118d.
ghostbmw is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-16-2012, 06:52 PM   #10
KoenG
First Lieutenant
 
Drives: E39 530i & F10 520d
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Europe

Posts: 319
iTrader: (0)

I also checked, since I'am a bit taken here, I admit, the engine has identical torque in the identical rpm band and the weight is identical also! The gear box is the same, and.... the end transmission on the ED is even SHORTER not longer!

In the (belgian) specification, the end ratio is 3.08 to 2.93 for respectively the 2.0l and 1.6l. Meaning that the 1.6d is pulling shorter with the same engine output power! The 80-100 is repectively 8,6/11,7s for 2.0D versus 10,2/14,2s for 1.6D.

Well frankly, I cannot explain! The only explanation left is the 1.6d drops off very fast, but it also delivers identical kW at identical rpm than the 2.0D so it steams up identical to 4000rpm! Under these circumstances, who can explain the figure of the borchure?

I cannot! Bur i'am also anxious to understand.
KoenG is offline   Belgium
0
Reply With Quote
      08-16-2012, 07:08 PM   #11
KoenG
First Lieutenant
 
Drives: E39 530i & F10 520d
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Europe

Posts: 319
iTrader: (0)

Hey, I just see on the next page that the ED has tires 205 and the 2.0d has 195 at identical 55/16, meaning that the ed has a longer convolutive: one turn of the wheel brings you 198,5 cms further, the 2.0d only 195 cm. This implies the 2.0d gains on strenght here, but only very mariginal. Not explaining the 20% anyway!
KoenG is offline   Belgium
0
Reply With Quote
      08-18-2012, 07:31 PM   #12
alex004600
New Member
 
Drives: BMW 325TDS
Join Date: May 2012
Location: LX

Posts: 10
iTrader: (0)

I would go for the ED in case of city driving, due to the low consumption. If you plan to drive mainly on highways go for a 2.0L engine, i think the plus 1500 euros for the 118d will worth, even if you have to cut an extra, the car will be more fun to drive.
alex004600 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-19-2012, 05:38 AM   #13
orcomma
Second Lieutenant
 
orcomma's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 F20 116d Sport 5dr
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Manchester UK

Posts: 273
iTrader: (0)

My partner has a Mini Countryman CooperD with the 1.6 N47 engine and he struggles to get more than 50mpg out of it, but that could be the aerodynamics.
orcomma is offline   United Kingdom
0
Reply With Quote
      08-20-2012, 04:55 PM   #14
ghostbmw
New Member
 
Drives: BMW
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Spain

Posts: 6
iTrader: (0)

Hi,

Regarding the Mini Countryman Cooper D with the 1.6 N47 engine there are some funny data that I still can't explain. The fuel consumption can be explained due to the aerodynamics, as the Cx is not very good, but there are some strange data regarding the performance:

0-100: 10,9 s. (10,5 s 116d ED)
80-120 (4 gear): 9,7 s. (10,2 s. 116d ED)
80 -120 (5 gear): 11,9 s. (14,2 s. 116 ED)

I still can't understand why using the same engine, the 116d ED is able to be faster than the Mini on the 0-100, but is significanly slower in the 80-120, specially in 5th gear as almost 2.5 secs seems to be too much...

With regard to the 118d, I agree that usually it worths to pay for the engine, but in my case, the car will be driven on highways at a moderated speed, so I think I don't need the 118d.
ghostbmw is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-23-2012, 08:21 PM   #15
alex004600
New Member
 
Drives: BMW 325TDS
Join Date: May 2012
Location: LX

Posts: 10
iTrader: (0)

..some differences for similar weights. Gear ratios and "ED" optimizations doing the timing differences.
I did a test drive on the ED and it seems Ok to cruise in highways. It as lowered suspension, an advantage to the normal 116d.
A downside is that only 16" wheels can be fitted in the ED model, the car looks better on 17".

i suggest a test drive on the ED to compare the engines
alex004600 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-23-2012, 10:52 PM   #16
AusF20
Captain
 
AusF20's Avatar
 
Drives: BMW 125i M sport
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Brisbane

Posts: 781
iTrader: (0)

If it is your wife who will drive it mostly it does not matter to much with variant you go with as they have similar specs
You can chip tune them later if you want more power.

It is more the extras you need to consider now.

I am sure that you have read many threads about the 'must have' options.

At the end of the day whichever F20 you choose it will be a nice ride.
Good luck, the list of extras and options is where you need to use your head not your heart.
AusF20 is offline   Australia
0
Reply With Quote
      09-02-2012, 07:44 AM   #17
troggy1969
Second Lieutenant
 
Drives: X3 3.0D SE Bluewater
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Omagh uk

Posts: 247
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Looking at the ed figures from the Autoexpress road test it looks like BMW may have published conservative figures for the ed.

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/volvo/v...-v40-vs-rivals

0 - 60 (96): 9.9sec
50 (80) - 70 (112): 9.8 in 5th
troggy1969 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-02-2012, 11:00 AM   #18
troggy1969
Second Lieutenant
 
Drives: X3 3.0D SE Bluewater
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Omagh uk

Posts: 247
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoenG View Post
I also checked, since I'am a bit taken here, I admit, the engine has identical torque in the identical rpm band and the weight is identical also! The gear box is the same, and.... the end transmission on the ED is even SHORTER not longer!

In the (belgian) specification, the end ratio is 3.08 to 2.93 for respectively the 2.0l and 1.6l. Meaning that the 1.6d is pulling shorter with the same engine output power! The 80-100 is repectively 8,6/11,7s for 2.0D versus 10,2/14,2s for 1.6D.

Well frankly, I cannot explain! The only explanation left is the 1.6d drops off very fast, but it also delivers identical kW at identical rpm than the 2.0D so it steams up identical to 4000rpm! Under these circumstances, who can explain the figure of the borchure?

I cannot! Bur i'am also anxious to understand.
You got the ratio right but the result wrong. The 1.6D has less of a reduction (2.93 v 3.08) so it is higher geared
troggy1969 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
116d, 116ed

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:09 AM.




1addicts
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST