did u sell it ?

Are you still alive bruh? I have one now!! Follow me on insta !

why would u wanna put a 520d badge on a 535d?

Ali Ouassini it's like putting an 1.4i Badge on a Supra.. It's for Special Effect purposes when someone behind you is getting itchy..

Ali Ouassini Why not? There's nothing more fun then underestimation, the underdog that wins. I had so much fun when the driver of that Mercedes CL 500 couldn't keep up with me and read the words 520d on the back. In his mind he got humilliated by a 4 cilinder diesel. The only difference is the single or double tailpipe on the muffler...

HuhnK0t Technically the Supra never had a 1.4 so never would one believe that but I got smoked one time by a guy who put a supra engine in a 80's RWD Toyota Corrola. I love sleeper cars.

Mohammed Janjua The car was stock, full M package in and outside. Only the ECU was tuned by an official BMW dealer with full factory warranty.

I believe it was an option

@@hazzaknox1069 nope

I have the 540i with M sports pack. Goddamn diff is useless, really could have used the LSD, esp at the price they sold for. You cant put down power when its anything but perfect good, dry tarmac AND you are going in a straight line. Power slides are also really difficult as you have to completely break traction of both rear wheels before it'll allow you to have fun - but just for a tiny bit of time.

faster? the time was the same. idiots like you praising german engineering hurt the reputation of german engineering.

um yea that makes alot of sense, buthurt nisan fanboy

IIP Velocity butthurt nissan fanboy? I'm just a normal person who has no difficulties reading numbers, unlike you. good luck with your special school and the sudden shitting in your pants.

FiredEmpire Yea, great comeback took you long enough 4 months? lol!

Just at the cost of bmw heresy.

Bilal Ahmed Why, because the numbers are the same?

Bilal Ahmed ...they didn't make the 535i until 2007, these cars are 2004 registered.

Oh' but still comparing a inline 6 diesel to a v8 isn't right !

Bilal Ahmed Why isn't it? If they cost the same,why can't they be compared?

Bilal Ahmed Of course it can. I6 turbo diesel versus N/A V8. Diesel makes more torque, why shouldn't you compare then?

I love the massive torque from these modern turbo diesels but you cant deny they are laughably unreliable.

Pickled Onion Which aspect? Perhaps you refer to modern emission systems to meet arbitrary targets? The diesel engine itself is inherently extremely robust & reliable, & with regular oil & filter changes can rack up gigantic mileages.

hiyadroogs Yes if they had lower pressure turbos and no silly emission controls they would not break down as much and would be more like the old merc e300d engines. But the trouble is car manufacturers now seem to be pushing for more power and more economy for a cheaper price so it looks better on paper.

Sergiu Orzac Hi Sergiu. 'Satan's fuel'?? I understand your other points, but must clarify mine. You are correct of course about diesel torque superiority only being available because of the turbocharger. The turbo is absolutely essential in diesel road vehicles if hp per litre parity with N/A petrols is required. Rudolf Diesel's goal was to achieve superior thermal efficiency to the SI (spark ignition) engine in theory & in practice. Equal power per litre was never an objective. - Nor because of pumping losses due to the extremely high compression, or the slow burning nature of the fuel (originally coal dust!) could it ever have been achieved. In other words, a well designed turbo diesel of identical capacity, can be made to achieve similar or even greater horsepower than a naturally aspirated petrol of modest rpm ceiling, - but simultaneously achieve considerably better mpg while doing so, due to the greater thermal efficiency. Which is the sole point of diesels in cars; Same performance, better economy. Obviously a turbo charged petrol has the potential to produce superior horsepower, because the petrol always has available at least 2000 extra rpm in which to achieve it. Also, the torque peak in petrols can be engineered to arrive wherever you want it, within reason, which favours power at high revs. Whereas the peak torque in diesels can sometimes be extended to 3000, but generally falls steeply after that. It is far easier technically & in terms of physics to gain more power through revs than through torque. Since even high speed diesels in cars are pretty much limited to little more than 4000, the ONLY way to achieve greater power in diesels is through the production of greater torque, - which of course requires turbochargers. The volumetric efficiency of the diesel is actually far better than the petrol in terms of cylinder filling, even when naturally aspirated. This is because there is much less impedence to induction air, as diesels are unthrottled. In diesels, only the amount of fuel injected per cycle changes, the induction volume of air, when N/A, remains pretty constant per cycle at all revs. At idle, a diesel may operate at air/fuel ratios of over a 100:1, & even at full power revs, will never approach the stoichiometric ratios of the petrol. Perhaps richening up to 25:1. Stoichiometric ratios in diesels would produce thick acrid black smoke & burn the pistons out in minutes. I think you were referring to the greater volume of air the petrol engine can process due to high revs. & of course the more air & fuel that can be processed per minute, the more potential power can be produced. Which, again, is why diesels NEED turbo's to achieve parity. I wasn't trying to make the case that diesels could achieve equal power outputs with identically multi-turboed petrols. That much higher rev ceiling & faster burning fuel of the petrol is pretty unassailable. But within its limited rev range, the diesel is, in theory & practice, usually stronger & more efficient at all engine speeds below 3500 than turbo petrols. This is because the brake mean effective pressures during combustion in turbo diesels - exceeds that even of turbocharged petrols - up to approx 3000 plus. Which is why turbo diesels produce greater peak torque per litre, entirely free of the dangers of detonation that inhibit high boost pressures in SI engines.

hiyadroogs By definition, diesel engine required turbocharger to work optimal (non-Turbo diesel is pointles). Turbocharger brought not only performance to diesel engine, but also made it much more economical. Now, there is a perception, in principle may be correct, as would be pointless to directly compare a turbo-diesel with a non-turbo Petrol of same capacity (much less torque at much higher rpm). Usually this equivalent would be the TD engines capacity * Turbo pressure = the equivalent of N/A Petrol. Meaning something like, a 2 Liter TD * 1.2 bar (turbochargers pressure) = 2,4 Liter Petrol (non Turbo) is the engine to compare with. If the TD is twin-turbo, then the petrol equivalent should be higher. Perhaps a 4.5 liter petrol is a little too big for this comparison, but a 4.0 Liter (maybe even a 4.2) may be fair. For example, if the Audi 3.0 TDI is twin-turbo, then the 4.2 fsi may be the correct comparison. Anyway the 535d (the 3 Liter twin-turbo from BMW) was remarkable and no doubt would easily wipe a 3.6 Liter non-turbo petrol engine out and probably would still beat a 4.0 liter one. I think we should notice, the 535d may have been a Little in disadvantage in this situation (exactly because of the huge torque at low rpm) because of the wet track. It would have been interesting a test/race on dry. Also both are BMW, so premium cars, very suitable for family to. They are not meant for race (although they are very capable cars) but for long ways, journeys, many many miles per year. Now there is the question, which of them brings more advantages (reliability in time, economicity, comfort etc). Because those who want a car almost(or completely) sport oriented, perhaps would go for an evo (maybe the MR400 one), completely sacrificing the comfort and any economical principle. Now there is one more principle, saying a turbo-diesel (again, diesel works by default with turbo for optimal results) should be compare with N/A Petrol and the twin-turbo diesel with turbo-Petrol. The question would remain, what should we the twin-turbo petrol compare with?

my 535d has 258k/h at 3600 revs it´s a E60

a 1.9tdi b5 passat got a variable turbo if im not mistaken and its older than the e60!!:D i love old passats they are brilliant cars lol:D

the 535i isnt turbo though

x Jaffa Cake you have to have turbo with modern diesels though

The 535i e60 has twin turbo..

for sure comparing v8 to v6 is not really good comparison, I am sure gasoline v6 would be a bit faster as well but not as much as v8

Grzes Greg What V6 ? BMW doesn't produce V6 engines, just L6.

that just shows how actually clarcson is a good driver.

InBoostWeTrust7MGTE why??

VTECB18 thre is no question WHY.. he IS

InBoostWeTrust7MGTE maybe if they dropped a 7mgte in there jeremy clarkson might have won.

VTECB18 haha maybe but i think clarkson in built B18B lightweight civic would just ate stig for a dinner :D

paddyc20 and if you spend £100 on a remap it will be faster than the 4.4 v8.

Callum Curtis i know mate. what a wopper. me dad had a remapped 535d was boss. just stipid they way he slates diesels an trys to show tgere not as fast when he comparws it against somethin veey different. 530i is good comparison.an it would smoke them.

paddyc20 these 3 litre 6 cylinder germans are really fast and economical. My cousin has a E350 CDI and after a remap it is pushing close to 700nm torque's! And the E350 Diesel is more refined than the petrol car.

+Prashant Yadav diesel are excellent mate

Why do people always have to find something to bitch about xD

e60 535i has 306hp, 530i 272hp, 535d 286hp

Yiğit Kılıç exactly, 535i Turbo Petrol, 530i without turbo 258hp or 272 facelift

Horsepower is how fast you can drive into a wall. Torque is how far you can drag the wall with you after impact.

535d is 3.0l twin turbo. No 3.5l.