Error parsing XSLT file: \xslt\FacebookOpenGraph.xslt Our Fleet Test Drive: BMW 330d - 2nd Report
Cookies on Businesscar

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on the Business Car website. However, if you would like to, you can change your cookies at any time

BusinessCar magazine website email Awards mobile

The start point for the best source of fleet information

Our Fleet Test Drive: BMW 330d - 2nd Report

Date: 07 April 2009   |   Author:

330 in the pub car park

Given the timing of our new arrival, weeks before the new capital allowance rules kick in on 1 April, the 152g/km 330d is also here to prove the new threshold doesn't mean the end of great business cars for companies taking the sensible route of striking off anything over 160g/km.

It is, too, another shining example of BMW's efficient dynamics programme at work.

Although 245PS 330d doesn't get stop-start - that's limited to the smaller-engined models at present - it compares with 172g/km for the equivalent Audi A4 and 193g/km for the admittedly auto-only Mercedes C-class rival.

The 330d has several levels of delight. The initial impressions are all about the great driving experience thanks mainly to what's possibly the finest achievement on offer from an engine point of view. The power delivery and, for a diesel, noise are fantastic, but once you get over that there's the seriously impressive mpg figure to consider. Although our average is still a touch below 40mpg thanks to some 'spirited' driving, on the motorway it's easy to move gently towards 50mpg. From a 3.0-litre BMW. I tell you, that Efficient Dynamics borders on witchcraft.

And this is before the German brand extensd its stop-start technology to bigger six-cylinder engines like this one, which should happen in 2010.

BMW 330d SE saloon
Mileage4056
Our average consumption39.8mpg
Forecast CPM66.4p
Actual CPM66.8p
PlusEngine, chassis,
emissions, running
costs
NegativeExpense of options



Share


Subscribe