Skip to content
BMW models, news & reviews
4
Handling
Performance
Usability
Feelgood factor
Readers' rating
3.5
By Ben Pulman
First Drives
26 August 2009 11:46
This BMW 320d EfficientDynamics is the cleanest, greenest, most fuel-efficient 3-series ever. It’s designed to appeal to fleet buyers and the environmentally conscious alike, and thanks to some further tuning and tweaking of the company’s biggest selling Three, the 320d EfficientDynamics will, on paper at least, achieve 68.9mpg and emit a remarkable 109g/km. It’ll be officially unveiled at the Frankfurt motor show next month, but CAR has already driven it…
It is – since BMW first revealed its eco-friendly Efficient Dynamics technology in 2007, every manual 320d that’s emerged from Munich’s factories has been fitted with active aero, low-rolling resistance tyres, a gearshift indicator, an intelligent alternator and a stop/start system. In fact, every four-cylinder Three with a manual ‘box has come so equipped.
But there’s now a new version. So far the Efficient Dynamics tech has all been standard and relatively under-the-radar (whereas Mercedes badges all its latest models BlueEfficiency) but BMW has now come up with an even cleaner 3-series. It’s the company’s special eco model, with extra tweaks to make it even greener and save you money with its startling CO2 output.
The four-cylinder diesel is the familiar single-turbo 2.0-litre unit that powers that 316d, 318d and 320d, but some engine tweaks lower the power (and thus the CO2 output), but the torque output is actually up. The usual complement of Efficient Dynamics tech is standard, but this 320d has a longer final drive ratio, new 16-inch ‘Aero’ alloys and lower suspension.
Beyond that there’s a new two-mass flywheel with a centrifugal-force pendulum – it sounds complicated but effectively weights inside the flywheel counteract the vibrations from the engine. In itself this doesn’t improve emissions but the system is claimed to make the driving experience smoother at lower rpm, which should in turn encourage drivers to use fewer revs and higher gears. And that’s means more miles per gallon.
But the end result isn’t an efficient-but-achingly-slow BMW. After all the tweaking this 320d puts out 161bhp and 265lb ft, respectively down and up on the regular 177bhp/258lb ft 320d. Plus the on-paper performance differences are marginal – the new car is three-tenths slower to 62mph (at 8.2sec) and three digits slower flat out (as if it matters).
The emissions and economy figures are even more impressive – the 320d ED manages 68.9mpg on the combined cycle and only emits 109g/km, compared to 58.9mpg and 128g/km for the normal car. Buy a 316d and you’ll still only managed 62.8mpg and 118g/km. That means the 320d Efficient Dynamics driver will only pay £35 a year in tax, and face a meagre 13% benefit-in-kind. So the UK is expected to take around 60% of production, and it should account for 30-50% of 320d sales in Blighty.
>> Click 'Next' to read the CAR verdict of the BMW 320d
Add your comment
Sign in You must be signed in to submit a comment.
BMW 320d Efficient Dynamics (2010) CAR review
Subject
Your comment
By submitting your comment, you agree to adhere to the CAR Magazine website Terms and Conditions
Cancel
You must be logged in to subscribe to a topic
Login or register now
Vision7 says
RE: BMW 320d Efficient Dynamics (2010) CAR review
We have had our 320d ED for six weeks and aprox. 6000 miles so far. 57.6 MPG is the best we have been able to achieve. While this is v. good in absolute terms, it is disappointing when compared to the original expectation and, more importantly, to an only very slightly less frugal 318d as well as a slightly less frugal 320d xDrive that we have owned before it. In daily life, the 320d ED's longer final drive ratio causes the engine to frequently operate outside of its optimal torque zone. The combination of a lowered suspension and the eco-tyres deprive it of much of the comfort and refinement of a normal Three. This car is technologically impressive and was probably worth the try on paper. In subjective practice however, a standard 320d is a much more satisfying BMW to own and drive...
We have had our 320d ED for six weeks and aprox. 6000 miles so far. 57.6 MPG is the best we have been able to achieve. While this is v. good in absolute terms, it is disappointing when compared to the original expectation and, more importantly, to an only very slightly less frugal 318d as well as a slightly less frugal 320d xDrive that we have owned before it.
In daily life, the 320d ED's longer final drive ratio causes the engine to frequently operate outside of its optimal torque zone. The combination of a lowered suspension and the eco-tyres deprive it of much of the comfort and refinement of a normal Three. This car is technologically impressive and was probably worth the try on paper. In subjective practice however, a standard 320d is a much more satisfying BMW to own and drive...
30 January 2012 22:52
werfnala says
I have now had my 320d Ed for about a month. Daily travel is around 30 miles, half motorway and half normal road. The onboard computer seems to fluctuate between 49.5 and 50.4 mpg. Some way off the quoted figure, but a lot better than my old 318SE. Still, I am interested in what others have found, and what the realistic expectations are. I don't floor it or do anything that I would have thought lowered the figure. Would it be something to do with the engine setup ? One feature of this car seems to be the very low revs it runs on. Its only around 2K doing 80mpg, and normal driving sees it around the 1500 mark. Performance is very reasonable especially mid range and overall I am very impressed, its just the difference between quoted and real mpg has has me concerned.
I have now had my 320d Ed for about a month. Daily travel is around 30 miles, half motorway and half normal road.
The onboard computer seems to fluctuate between 49.5 and 50.4 mpg. Some way off the quoted figure, but a lot better than my old 318SE. Still, I am interested in what others have found, and what the realistic expectations are. I don't floor it or do anything that I would have thought lowered the figure. Would it be something to do with the engine setup ?
One feature of this car seems to be the very low revs it runs on. Its only around 2K doing 80mpg, and normal driving sees it around the 1500 mark.
Performance is very reasonable especially mid range and overall I am very impressed, its just the difference between quoted and real mpg has has me concerned.
19 July 2011 08:06
williamsWR says
We recently purchased a BMW 320d ED, mainly because of the excellent fuel consumption. The quoted figure of 68.9mpg is very optimistic for, although both my wife and I have tried to drive the car as eficiently as possible, the best we have achieved is 57.6. However, in comparison with the A4 TDI's we have driven for many years the overall consumption is frugal. Performance is excellent but if I have any criticism it is that BMW charge so much for their optional extras.
22 July 2010 13:16
attomole says
Whatever the reality of real world driving and as a 320d driver i suspect it will be somewhat south of 70mpg (i get high 45-50) Those numbers a very very impressive, 0-60 under eight seconds 109g CO2 near 70mpg in 1.5 Tonne car! those hybrid manufactures must be scurrying back to there slide rules, is it rearly worth lugging around batteries and electric motors if you don't use them all the time? bearing in mind this is still a 2L d in quite a high state of tune it could loose 50 lbft and or a cylinder and still potter about the place acceptably. For company car drivers this now makes a great choice, one wonders why they didn't do this before as it looks like a 20-30% improvement for little lost performance
Whatever the reality of real world driving and as a 320d driver i suspect it will be somewhat south of 70mpg (i get high 45-50) Those numbers a very very impressive, 0-60 under eight seconds 109g CO2 near 70mpg in 1.5 Tonne car! those hybrid manufactures must be scurrying back to there slide rules, is it rearly worth lugging around batteries and electric motors if you don't use them all the time? bearing in mind this is still a 2L d in quite a high state of tune it could loose 50 lbft and or a cylinder and still potter about the place acceptably.
For company car drivers this now makes a great choice, one wonders why they didn't do this before as it looks like a 20-30% improvement for little lost performance
09 September 2009 20:38
comment8 says
Joedodgy you are incorrect - maunfacturers perform their own tests, that is why they are quoted as manufacturers claims. Did 5th Gear match the urban figure or the combined figure? What did normal driving consist of. As to comparisons , if one takes CARs long term fleet. The Mini, 335, Volvo and Audi that were on test deviated furthest from their manufacturers claimed consumption. No manufacturer met its claimed consumption but these cars differed far more significantly. VWs TSI engine mathced the vanilla Qashqai which was crticised for its poor consumption!
30 August 2009 03:53
Upload stories, photos or videos direct to the site, or email newsdesk@carmagazine.co.uk.
Alternatively, call 01733 468 485 (+ 44 1733 468 485)
Seen a secret new car, fabulous exotic or have news we should publish? Then get in touch now.