Do Not Sell My Personal Information Jump to content


FinLex

Members
  • Posts

    147
  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Forums

Events

Store

Gallery

Tutorials

Lexus Owners Club

Gold Membership Discounts

Lexus Owners Club Video

News & Articles

Posts posted by FinLex

  1. It's a mongrel...nowhere near best in its class, and was introduced on in Europe for obvious reasons (fleet market/tax etc). Not the type of car Lexus is normally associated with. think they've learnt their lesson though and will not be following it up. Hate it when my local dealership provide one as a courtesy car.

    Not the type of car Lexus is normally associated with? Would have to agree with you on that, since it is their first diesel... :whistling:

  2. No one should make any calculations based on the official figures... They are not even comparable between two cars and they most certainly don't represent your everyday driving. I know your government uses them and ours does too, but they really shouldn't. Official figures are rubbish, and that's that. Test drive is the only way to know for sure which car is economical for you and which is not. I got better mileage from the 220d Sport than the regular version. Based on the official figures, that shouldn't be possible.

  3. Finlex is correct - braking is evil and ruins MPG. But.........When was the last time you could drive in an English motorway at a constant speed of 75mph to keep momentum? The roads are terribly congested and you could be breaking the law. You can average 48-50mph only no matter where you go during the day on a motorway. And the car only gives high 30's in MPG. In most cities they have started to "stack" traffic using traffic lights which appears to stay Red longer than green on all major routes going into town centres. So you are always stopping and starting. Use 1st and 2nd gear and the economy goes down.

    This is where BMW with ED has hit the right measure for Englands roads.

    Lexus is an excellent car elsewhere, let down by a slightly old fashioned design. It is still classed as E4, not E5, so when people say it is the cleanest, what do they mean? CO2 is very high too. Does any person here know what the particulate emission measure is and how it compares to others? It is possible that Lexus have been standing still with the 220d engine trying to fix the bad emission design with all complaints, and everyone else is running away into the distance.

    Good to hear that BMW's ED is good for something. For me, it doesn't do a thing.

    When I say that Lexus is the cleanest in its class, that is exactly what I mean. MB E 300 Bluetec is significantly better than Lexus in NOX, but even that can't touch Lexus' CO level. Plus it's a lot more expensive. BMW 320d is behind in both NOX and CO. Audi A4 with the new 2.0 TDI (170 hp) is the first real challenger in the class, being a bit better in NOX but a lot more behind in CO. Lexus is Euro5. It's been discussed a lot, since Lexus doesn't say it in the spec sheet. That is only because Euro5 doesn't do anything for now.

    CO2 is another thing completely. CO2 is not air pollution, as such. The only reason for all the buzz on CO2 is the global warming. Serious as that may be, cancer and respiratory deceases are more so IMHO.

    You could say Lexus has been standing still since the introduction of the 220d, for they haven't updated the engine. But then again, it's only been less than three years. The mid-life facelift would be the logical time to do a touchup, so fingers crossed. Some say Lexus will drop the diesel altogether, but I don't buy it.

    Oh yes, the emission figures. Here's the whole package.

    Lexus IS 220d: CO 0.13 g/km ; NOX 0.16 g/km ; Particulates 0.002 g/km

    MB E 300 A Bluetec: CO 0.187 g/km ; NOX 0.028 g/km ; Particulates 0.001 g/km

    BMW 320d: CO 0.249 g/km ; NOX 0.171 g/km ; Particulates 0 g/km

    Audi A4 2.0 TDI 170 hp: CO 0.189 g/km ; NOX 0.131 g/km ; Particulates 0.0011 g/km

    Euro5 for diesels: CO 0.50 g/km ; NOX 0.23 g/km ; Particulates 0.018 g/km

    First of all, all these are Euro5 compliant. As you can see, CO level is very good on Lexus. In NOX, MB with its very sophisticated deNOX technology is the clear winner, Audi is better than Lexus as well but the difference isn't as big. Particulate amount is very, very low on all the candidates, so I would say the differencies are negligible.

  4. The fuel economy meter is a precision tool for figuring out whether or not the engine is labouring. Good mileage -> no problem. Bad mileage -> downshift.

    The reason why the handbook says the 6th gear shouldn't be used below 75 is that it is the foolproof figure. At 75 mph you can use it even going up a steep hillside. On the other hand, going down hill the engine isn't labouring even at 50 mph.

  5. did you miss the comment from the gentleman who wrote software for a fleet company ,whos data showed 80% of their is220d drives had complaints ... have you not listend to the people who have actually sold there cars at a loss becuase they were so agreved?

    no?

    really

    oh i forgot the is220 is great , ....... or yes it wouldbe if i got 40+ mpg .

    mine does not and fwiw let me judge my opinion of the economy on actual real life experience like ,every time i have visited my dealer there is another diesel driver complaining (yes every time)

    and all the diesel drives i have met and spoken to face to face all claim the same ,and in the last few months thats 7 real people ..... alot fot a great car don't you think.

    Did you miss all the gentlemen with reasonable mileage in that thread I posted? Or in all the other ones? Or don't they just count in your book?

    You just go ahead and judge your opinion on real life experience. You haven't tried them all, so don't say they're all faulty. I haven't tried them all, and I'm not saying they're all good. Okay?

  6. what i am trying to get across to you is that i have had many cars that have had "special" driving styles to get best from them , they all are used for circuit racing , and MPG has never been high on their feature list .... most people would say the handling was twitchy and dangerous , and would struggle to see the best from them .

    They are built to a purpose

    However your average mass market fleet diesel engine should be able to nowadays produce 40mpg driven by any monkey .

    and yes i would accept 10% down on the market leaders but have a search and even those claiming good mpg are saying it 38 to 39 on a run .... still way off 10% down.

    my motive is clear .. for lexus to look and acknowlage the issues and try and have dialogue with there customers to resolve it .

    There are many who are reporting 50+ MPG on a run, and most seem to get around 45. Remember this thread?

    http://www.lexusownersclub.co.uk/forum/ind...=47633&st=0

    I kind of thought you would be interested in getting to the bottom of this mileage problem. Silly me. That's what I was trying to help you with in the first place. Now I can see why you would call the 220d in general a disaster. Your trying to cause Lexus maximum PR damage, so they would work harder on your case. Effective as it could be, I'm not too keen on the idea of you claiming most 220d's having this problem. That is a serious accusation, one that requires serious evidence. I have yet to see a single 220d that can't be driven with reasonable fuel economy, but even based on that I'm not saying there can't be plenty of such cars out there. See the difference?

  7. it is the engine , and the gearing combined .... its quite simple

    drive like miss daisy and you will see terrible economy

    drive like a normal driver and you'll see something thats laughable .

    there isn't a fix lexus can come up with so they'll drop the model and when they do it will be for no other reason than it being a money sapping failure .

    And yes i am and will continue to bash the 220d till someone gives me one that i can drive normally and see 40+ mpg .....

    you do and your happy .

    the large majority of 220d drivers don't i am not willing to drive like you , that does not make me wrong for not adjusting to drive slower than my gran what it actually does is make the engine terrible !!!!

    I guess that answers my question... I don't understand your motive, but maybe I don't need to. Let's just leave it with that.

    I regularly get 50+ MPG driving in what is now my very normal driving style. That is about 10 percent less than I would with the very best diesels in the class. Not being the top pick for everything is not the same as being a failure, in my book.

    I'll believe that Lexus is dropping diesels when I see it. It is a huge market segment, one that I can't believe they could afford to drop. Toyota is not going to, that's for sure, and when there are diesel engines being developed in-house, there is no sense in not using them for the Lexus line-up as well.

  8. Finlex ... when will you understand that you have a totally diferent gearing setup .... search the forum the lhd spec cars are not the same ,and again you have a sport anyway so you have totally different geaing

    And what part of a 400 mile round trip using cruise control with no traffic at 75mph returning 36mpg don't you understand .... that was motorway .. no traffic at all didn't stop going up ,or back .... 36mpg .... is useless , did you not see the post above , fleet users reported 80% of drivers were unhappy with fuel economy . Do you not understand that thats alot of drivers who have issues , belive what you want but a uk non sport spec car in most situations is awful compared to it direct rivals .

    Its not me .... its not jut a few people , its a large percentage of users .... and tell me this ... why does every courtesey car i get in have a tank average of 30 maybe 32 mpg ?

    why?

    maybe because thats what they do , and thats **** .

    if lexus had said it would do 32 and thats what the competition got then no issue , but they don't and lexus havn't .... but you'll never understand whats been pointed out to you by various people on this thread and those who have simply given up saying it.

    i am glad you get good economy and i am glad you enjoy your car .... trust me if on a run mine did 40+ mpg i would be happy too

    I understand perfectly well that I have a different gearing than yours. You don't seem to understand that the engine is the same! How many times in this thread alone have you said that the engine is an utter failure? Are you now saying that it's not the engine, but the standard gearing? Because on that I could just about agree with you.

    Each and every 220d that I've driven (there are five) have had terrible tank averages on the BC when I've started driving them. Each have returned something entirely different when driven the way I drive. That goes to prove my point: the fuel economy of the 220d is very vulnerable to differencies in driving style. Not a good trait, but it doesn't bother me since I can get the mileage I expected. By the way: my expectations were not based on the official figures, because I know they are BS. Just look at the figures of the standard 220d and the Sport and you'll see my point.

    I have not completely ruled out differencies between UK spec and other 220d's. I just don't know why there would be any. It doesn't fit in the Toyota/Lexus philosophy of using the same parts and technology where ever it's possible. And there are many UK owners who are reporting mileage similar to mine.

    Earlier cars vs. later ones... Could be. Slight improvements on the production line are well in line with the manufacturer's philosophy. Much more likely than the geographic modifications theory.

    Why do you say that I don't understand what has been pointed out to me? Have I said that there can't be economy related issues with 220d owners? I haven't and there are. There are also those like myself, who report reasonable figures. The reason for this split in opinions is what the members of this community have been relentlessly trying to find out. Theories that have been suggested there are plenty. I've already posted at least half a dozen of them in this thread. You haven't commented on these at all, which raises the question: Are you more interested in bashing the 220d than in trying to find out the reason for your troubles?

  9. Harv,

    if you could look at things from even a slightly more objective perspective, you would see that there is basically just one flaw in the 220d engine: it doesn't return good mileage in heavy urban traffic. Why, I say WHY, can you not see that this isn't enough to make it a complete failure? When you say that the engine is a total lemon, you're basically saying that I and everyone else who bought one have screwed up. I scanned the field, made a thorough comparison, decided on the 220d and so far have not had any second thoughts. When you say that the 220d is a failure, you're also saying that my car is terrible and that I shouldn't be happy with it. When you keep repeating it over and over again, whilst I keep telling you that I really am happy with it, you're basically telling me that you know better than me. Can you not see how frustrating that is? It's not good for you, fine, but try to accept that it is good for me and many others, I'm sure.

    It is ludicrous to think that any car manufacturer would go back to Euro 4 limits just to get better mileage. The diesel particulates and nitrogen oxides are very dangerous emissions. Euro 5 is a given, every manufacturer is going there and that's the way it should be.

    You not being happy with your car isn't enough to convince me of any serious damage to the Lexus brand. Lexus has gotten a lot of new customers with the 220d and I know for a fact that many of them are very happy with their car. I can see you feel let down, but you really should try to keep yourself from making too coarse conclusions. Please accept that there are many perfectly happy 220d owners who don't share your visions of disaster.

    One more thing. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the official fuel consumption figures are not manufacturers' claims. They are the results of an official, neutral test cycle. The 220d as well as every other car out there, really do return the official figures when driven in the way the official test is driven. The problem is that absolutely no one, not even me with my "impossible, unrealistic driving style", can drive like that. This is a serious problem with the test, not with the cars or manufacturers. Lexus is not alone in this and in my experience not even the worst off.

  10. Geoffers,

    That is exactly what I'm saying. The 220d can be competitive on fuel economy, when the conditions are right. When they are not, the mileage drops more violently than with most other diesels. I would say a lot of these less-than-optimal conditions are typical to urban environment. For extra-urban the 220d is fine, for urban it's not.

    That might very well be the reason why I haven't heard a single complaint on fuel economy from a Finnish 220d driver. Extra-urban we have a lot, urban not that much. Lexus IS 220d, the expert's choice for rural driving! :P

  11. if it gave 40mpg i would love it ....... it would be fine and i would except it not as good as the oposition but not awfull

    36mpg whilst doing 200 miles with the cruis on in a diesel was awful plain and simple .

    you have a sport diff and belive me i have driven the sport , the ratio's are so much better and tbh i belive thats a major plus for you ....

    but if you belive that the way you described is the way to acheive fuel economy then i belive you would see 70mpg out of a VAG car or bmw or even a mercedes .... thats the issue

    i don't care about consumption what i do care about is seemingly por consumption compared to others in its class , today we have tested an RS4 cabriolet audi yes it did 20mpg in a semi urban drive , but look what we get for that compromise ,and its similar mpfg to everything else thats simlar that we have looked at .

    my wife won't be doing more than a 30 mile motorway commute so we can suffer 25mpg ....

    I tested a lot of cars the last time I was buying. Back then BMW 320d had the 163 hp diesel, Audi A4 the 140 hp, VW Passat the 170 hp, MB 200 CDI the 136 hp and Alfa 159 the 200 hp. Of these, BMW and Audi gave better fuel economy than the 220d, VW and MB about the same than Lexus, and Alfa was worse. I also tested both gearing for the 220d and found out that the sport version was, indeed, better.

    Since then, I've refined my driving style a bit more to suit my car. I've tested some other cars, too. Audi A4 1.8 TFSI and IS 250 A are the last two. Audi returned 42 MPG in my typical A-road driving, where I usually get around 50 MPG with my car. IS 250 A returned 40.4 cruising at around 60, whereas my car gave 48.7 on the same exact route. Urban driving with 250 A showed 29.4 and my car, as mentioned, 31.4.

    Those two are petrol, of course. The best I've got out of the Audi A4 1.9 TDI 130 hp I used to drive semi-regularly was around 55 MPG. Haven't tested the new common-rail Audi 2.0 TDI or the 177 hp BMW, but what I've read about them in the tests, I would expect those to give me 50+ tank averages and 55+ on a run. No more, no less. Been planning to give these a go for a while now, but just don't seem to get to it.

  12. We have similar background, but very different views on this matter. There most definitely is a special driving style for this car. I've driven a lot of diesels, VAG especially. Not a single one of them has been as delicate as the 220d. It has to driven between 1500 and 2000 rpm and full stops have to be avoided at all cost. Uphill driving, not to mention uphill accelerating, is poison. Keeping the momentum is essential, even more so than with any other car I've driven. That is extremely difficult in heavy urban traffic, which is why I don't recommend the 220d to anyone for that kind of use. But in extra-urban conditions, driving like I said, it returns proper mileage. Not top class, but not terrible either.

    Think I need to agree with Harv here, I wouldn't be able to tolerate having to drive a car that required so much thought, driving would just be so much more tiring!

    Agree on what? I'm not saying that it's a joy to drive the 220d in urban environment, but that is the way it needs to be driven to get proper mileage. If that sounds intolerable to you, then the 220d isn't the car for you, either. And that's just fine by me. But the 220d works for me. I'm able to not only tolerate, but enjoy driving it. That seems to be a crime around here, which I just don't get. If I don't find it uneconomical, tiring or troublesome, then it's okay to call me a moron and ignore everything I say? Quite frankly, that is what Harv seems to be doing.

  13. Harv,

    you completely missed my point. You don't have to drive the way I described, but if you don't then you shouldn't be complaining on the poor fuel economy, either. The fact is that the 220d will not give you good mileage, if you don't drive it like that. If you won't, then it's your fault. If you can't, then you have the wrong car. In short, go get another car and stop whining.

    So the secret behind the British engineering is denying the facts? Good luck, my mate.

  14. we have several on the fleet and they all perform with poor mpg and they all have different drivers in differing parts of the uk ...... there should be no special style to get good economy and if you belive this then i am afraid you are wrong , yes petrol to diesel there is a different way to drive .

    the comparison of different cars of course is valid i have to pull you up on that because the whole reason any performance figures are quoted is for comparison , be it in terms of speed ,power ,acceleration or just economy.

    My background is in engineering , i have been involved in motorsport for many years , and trust me i realise that there are trade off in producing a decent performance diesel engine .... lexus as yet cannot hold a torch to audi bmw ford or vauxhaul at the moment on engines no excuse.

    We have similar background, but very different views on this matter. There most definitely is a special driving style for this car. I've driven a lot of diesels, VAG especially. Not a single one of them has been as delicate as the 220d. It has to driven between 1500 and 2000 rpm and full stops have to be avoided at all cost. Uphill driving, not to mention uphill accelerating, is poison. Keeping the momentum is essential, even more so than with any other car I've driven. That is extremely difficult in heavy urban traffic, which is why I don't recommend the 220d to anyone for that kind of use. But in extra-urban conditions, driving like I said, it returns proper mileage. Not top class, but not terrible either.

    You seem to give the 220d absolutely no credit for having the cleanest diesel engine in the class even almost three years after its introduction. I know you can't see the results of that in everyday use, but the effect is there. Now, I accept that there really are tradeoffs in producing the cleanest diesel engine in the class. One of them is the effect it has on the mileage. Nothing comes for free, but still credit should be given where credit is due.

    All things considered, I give the 220d engine a lot of credit. It's the cleanest in the class, it's very torque, it's way more refined than many other in the class (VAG pumpe-düse diesels especially), and at least for me not that uneconomical, either. It is a bit too fragile on economy, though, and combined with the weight and gearing of the 220d, that can cause a lot of worries for anyone trying to get stellar mileage out of it. It is not as good as BMW, Merc, VAG or even GM in some things, but none of them are as good as the Lexus in others. You win some, you lose some. I must disagree with you on whether or not Lexus is comparable with any other diesel car in the class. I think it most definitely is, even if it's not for everyone. The competition is tough, though, and age is starting to weigh down on the 220d. I really hope that Lexus will give the diesel engine a touchup soon, otherwise it will start to fade away as a competitive alternative.

  15. Harv,

    not everything I said was pointed at you. The driving style part, for one. I just wrote a general view on all the aspects of this infamous mileage problem with the 220d.

    A few months back I wrote in a thread a short description of my driving style. A few of the responses were something like "I can't drive like that" or "That can't be the right way"! So I was getting the mileage these guys wanted, but they were telling me I was wrong? :duh:

    Now, what you did in your last message was exactly what I've seen many people doing: telling references with other cars. As I said, they don't count. This is another car and another world. It needs to be driven in the right way for it, not in the right way for other cars. And if your driving style or conditions or whatever just don't work for the 220d, then I would suggest you move on, like Harrydavy did. The car is what it is, and if you just can't make it fit your needs, then you need another car. It is as simple as that.

    What I still don't get is that the ones getting poor mileage seem to be telling me that there is nothing wrong with their driving, it's all in the car. I'm getting 48 MPG tank after tank and 50+ on a run, easy. If the car is the same, surely the difference must be in the driving? Okay, so not everyone can do their driving purely in extra-urban environments. As I said, urban driving is not the 220d's homefield. If you look at the gear ratios, this becomes very evident. The sport version (which I have), is better but still far from perfect.

    The 31.4 I mentioned is, as said, the very worst case scenario in Finland. That is downtown Helsinki in the rush hour with the eternal (it seems) road constructions all around. The slowest leg, about a quarter-mile from the Parliament House to the Forum parking hall, took me 20 minutes. So, first gear most of the time, second at best and a lot of idling. The rest of the test run wasn't quite as bad, but third gear was a rare thing.

    So I think it's fair to say that my car isn't that bad on fuel economy. Maybe some are not the same. But Lexus trying to fix it isn't real evidence that there is an actual problem with the car. This fuel economy issue is real because some Lexus' customers are struggling with it. I just think that if there was a concrete malfunction, they already would have come up with a solution. Therefore I think those still complaining are expecting the car to do something it just can't do. There are a lot of things the 220d can't do, because it is far from being perfect. But no-one in their right mind can say that anything else in the class is perfect, even the all-mighty BMW. There are different needs, there are different solutions. Each to their own, I say.

    One more thing, harv. Somehow I'm getting the impression you think that every 220d in England is faulty. I don't share that view, not at all. I've seen many posts from English 220d owners reporting similar mileage to mine. In fact, on this forum most of the complaining has been down to just a handful of people. I really think that the car is the same everywhere, but the driving conditions are not. There just seems to be some environments especially in the big English cities that the 220d can't really cope with. The 220d seriously isn't an all-rounder, but that doesn't make it terrible, as such.

  16. Harv,

    you're again making a bit of an overgeneralization when you say things like "its really really sad that they had the opertunity to compete with bmw but on the diesel front they have shut the door", "i really should just accept it but unless people keep on moaning its never going to get any better" and "lovely car lexus but terrible engine and worse gearbox ... you got it wrong".

    We know you're not happy. Still, you shouldn't take the authorization to speak for all the 220d owners, as you seem to be doing. As far as my opinion goes, 220d does compete (quite succesfully) with BMW on the diesel front and there is nothing to really moan about. The engine is powerful, easy on the ears and, even today, cleaner than anything else in the class, while on the fuel economy front not quite the top pick. Gearbox isn't the best, especially for urban driving, but for a highway cruiser it's not that bad. And now to the actual point: I'm fully aware that these are my personal opinions, based on my personal experience. They do not represent the views of the whole community, which I ackowledge. I'm only telling my side of the tale. I just hope that everyone else would stick to doing the same and let all the readers of these forums to draw their own conclusions. We all have our own expectations, our own needs and our own feelings. Yours are as valuable as mine, and vice versa. What is a gem of a car for me, could very well be an absolute nightmare for someone else. That is why no one should try to speak for anyone but themselves.

    My car has caused me no extra trouble. It makes me forget the cruel world outside when I'm driving it. It returns a tank average of about 48 MPG all the time and never, no matter what the conditions are, drops below 45 MPG on a run. The absolute worst I've had was the 31.4, that I got on the urban test I did a while ago against the IS 250 A. The traffic and the route on that test was the absolute worse case scenario in Finland. Okay, London is another thing, but still 23 MPG is a long way from 31.4. Urban driving is not the usage that the 220d is meant for, but I would say it should return 30 MPG or better NO MATTER WHAT.

    So the question remains: why are some of you guys not getting similar mileage? My answer is, that there is no single answer. For some of you, it could be the way you drive. I know you say that it can't be that, that you've had good mileage in that or that other car or that you've already tried a different driving style with the 220d. Well, it's a different car and it needs a different driving style. If the first try don't succeed, try again. I had to do some serious alternations on my driving style and, in fact, habits. Not just the way I accelerate, shift gears etc, but much much more: route decisions, scheduling etc. I avoid cold starts, short trips, heavy traffic, altitude differencies and what not. It may sound funny, but once I've got accustomed to it, it doesn't bother me at all. I care enough for the running costs and, maybe in a lesser amount, the environment to make the effort. And in the end, it has paid off.

    For some of you, it could be the different driving circumstances. I only do serious urban driving occasionally. It means, that if there is any kind of a learning element in the car somewhere, my urban driving isn't enough to make it more "aggressive". If you drive urban all the time, it might be different. Another thing is the DPF, which needs to burn the particles and soot from time to time. In extra-urban driving, the filter doesn't get as dirty in the first place, and the cleaning could very well be more efficient than in urban. If the filter is too full all the time, I'm sure it will affect the mileage.

    What else? Sulphur content of fuel, different wheel sizes, all kinds of small modifications to the car, maybe even an actual fault in some of them... Combine enough of these factors together, and you could easily start from the 50+ MPG on a run and end up to, say, 33 MPG. The problems with Harv and co. are real, no doubt about it. But there are so many factors in this equation, that the ultimate solution is in all likelihood unreachable. Sure, you can put Lexus jump through a loop if you have the energy, but I would suggest you rather go find a better car for your needs. Harrydavy, for one, has done just that and I'm glad he is happy now. It does no good to anyone to keep badmouthing the 220d. It's not a terrible car through and through, it's just made for a specific kind of use and to meet specific kinds of needs. If it's terrible at something, then it's at being an all-rounder!

  17. I finally had a decent go at the issue of 250 Auto fuel economy. Had the 30 000 km (20k miles) service done on my 220d Sport and used the time to do a test run on a base model 250 A. Did both a cruising leg and an urban round in moderate traffic. Cruising at around 60 mph returned 7.0 litres per 100 km (40.4 MPG). Urban returned 9.6 l/100km (29.4 MPG). Good numbers, as I expected. Did the same route with my own car after the service and got 5.8 l/100km (48.7 MPG) cruising and 9.0 l/100km (31.4 MPG) urban.

    Since most of my driving is extra-urban cruising, 220d is the one for me. As I expected and have said many times, urban driving is where the 250 A is excellent, both in comfort and in fuel economy.

    End note: The base model 250 A costs about the same as the 220d Sport here in Finland. Ended up missing the extra toys. I'm sticking with my car!

    PS. Consumption numbers from the BC.

  18. Many owners are perfectly happy with their 220d. It's just that we happy owners don't keep repeating our opinions as frequently as those who have had problems or just don't like diesels. A while ago it seemed to be almost unacceptable to say anything positive about the 220d, which raised a question: Why bother? If I'm happy, I don't need anyone telling me that I shouldn't be...

×
×
  • Create New...