Measurements by a Belgian car Magazine (=/= the official BMW stats)

0 - 100kph (0 - 62,5 mph): 8,8s
Topspeed: 219 kph (137 mph) @ 4000 rpm
0- 1/4 mile: 16,5s (@ 140 kph or 87,5 mph)
0- 1000m: 30,1s (@ 174 kph or 109 mph)

400m starting at 40 kph (= 1/4 mile starting at 25 mph): 17,5s in 4th / 21,6s in 5th
1000m starting at 40 kph: 31,4s in 4th / 37,2s in 5th
60 - 90 kph (37,5 - 56 mph): 5,3s in 4th / 7,4s in 5th
90 - 120 kph (56 - 75 mph): 5,6s in 4th / 6,8s in 5th


Official BMW stats:

0 - 100 kph (0 - 62,5 mph): 8,8s
Topspeed: 221 kph (138 mph)
80 - 120 khp (50 - 75 mph): 7,2s in 4th

:P

It probably feels a lot faster than it really is.

Nice looking car, but like you, Jabba, I would have preferred a petrol engine. BMW's diesels are very good diesel engines (I have never driven the 2 litre, but I did drive a 530d and an X5 3.0d before), but I still don't like the sound and their reluctance to rev higher than 4,000 rpms.

I agree that the performance of rescent diesels is really impressive. A friend if mine has as X5 3.0d with sport pack and it´s pretty fast. Of course the most impressive thing is always the torque and the fuel economy.

BTW, that 320cd looks really nice with the M pack. I absolutely love the alloys.

Well, I think it's a nice car too. Unlike schnell, I don't like the style of those alloys at all

As someone above mentioned (i think it was TT) you're lucky to get a BMW from BMW as a courtesy car. I had all sorts of crap as a loan car from the BMW dealerships (John Roberts, Dallas) here in Texas, but then my Z3 was in for warranty work. Perhaps it's different if you are actually spending money there (i.e. I'm assuming your car is in for a service?)

This is my favourite Diesel car. 8)

I've already seen a portuguese mag with a comparison between the M3 E46 and the 330Cd E46 and they said they weren't much diferent. The torque at the Diesel was really good, better than the M3.

Don't forget. In Portugal the number of diesel cars is growing everyday. I'm not shure but I would say that diesel car's are a litle more than half of the cars

I was going to say about 140 mph top end after last nights testing. The 0-60 time seems a hell of a lot quicker though and that was watching the speedo and it not just feeling quick.

Yes I can easily believe that and I only have the 320...it is simply OUTSTANDING.

About the comparison chest3r made: the torque might not differ much, but due to the fact the M3's engine can rev much higher it'll still blow a 330Cd away. The reason current diesel cars feel so fast is because most people only use the rev range where the diesel engine's strength lies. When commuting is the only use for a car I could certainly see the benefits of a diesel car.

Also, don't forget all diesel engines use forced induction. Strap a turbocharger and intercooler to an M3 engine and the difference gets even bigger.

i'll let you in on a little secret..

bmw have the model called a "M3" u think the 320 was fast ;)

try driving one of them!

Indeed diesels have come a long way, my dads E300 merc is also diesel and it is damn quick despite being an auto, though really at home on the motorway its still alright through the corners too (sports suspension i think) I wonder if the BM is still as economical as a regular diesel? have you had to fill it up yet Jabba?

Performance of a car, certainly a turbocharged one, is (very) dependant of the circumstances (temperature, humidity, pressure, etc). So it's certainly possible to achieve faster times than the official stats of the constructer.

On the other hand, a modern 'high performance' diesel will always feel quicker than its gasoline counterpart, cause those modern diesels release loads of torque very very quick. And it's just this you experiences as the way you’re pushed in the seat during accelerating. But it's also this that makes them really fast in elasticity runs.

It does 7l/100km

I don't know how much ois that in mpg... but it's a very good value to a car with 150bhp.

LOL i need some conversion tables or something! anyway i suppose whatever it works out at will compare favourably with the petrol equivialent in the range :) i've always associated diesels with economy and well just plain slow as a consequence, i mean now there are very few manufacturers without diesels in their line up.

According to the ECE cycle figures (constructers are obliged to publish those figures in their brochures):

Urban cycle: 7,9 l/100km = 29,8 mpg
Rural cycle: 4,5 l/100km = 52,3 mpg
Combined cycle: 5,7 l/100km = 41,3 mpg

The problem with those official ECE cycle figures is they're not realistic for bigger and more powerful engines, cause those cycles are completely not a heavy load for the engines. Those cycles consist of slow accelerations and max speed during the rural and combined cycle is 120 kph or 75 mph.

So your 7l/100 km (= 33,6 mpg) is a more realistic figure for the combined cycle than the official one.