730d anyone? 1 previous owner...

alx33277

pendulum wrote: »

It's 33.2mpg combined? That's not good.
The 2005 revision onwards is improved slightly but still not great.

It may be ok "for a 2 tonne car" but that's missing the point completely, as the point was people don't want big 2 tonne cars that aren't good on fuel anymore, so they're not worth much.

If, as you say, your point was "people dont want big 2 tonne cars that aren't good on fuel anymore" then perhaps you should have said just that, and not just said..."it's not a very economical diesel though".

Based on what you actually said, I've not missed any point - it's an incredibly economical car given its size, peformance, level of equipment, build quality and refinement.

Based on what you've now confirmed you intended to say (but didn't), I'm not missing the point either, as you're wrong on both counts. People are still buying lumpy diesels that return similar mpg accross all segments of the market from exec saloons to SUVs and this is reflected in fairly firm prices. Ask your nearest friendly car dealer for a quick thumb through CAP and you'll see what's "not worth much" and what is.

pendulum

alx33277 wrote: »

If, as you say, your point was "people dont want big 2 tonne cars that aren't good on fuel anymore" then perhaps you should have said just that, and not just said..."it's not a very economical diesel though".

Based on what you actually said, I've not missed any point - it's an incredibly economical car given its size, peformance, level of equipment, build quality and refinement.

Based on what you've now confirmed you intended to say (but didn't), I'm not missing the point either, as you're wrong on both counts.

Haha. What a load of rubbish. I didn't just say what you quoted, try actually reading this thread properly and reading my first post where my point was made. There's no need to get so upset because your "near 40mpg" statement was wrong. 33.2mpg is not "incredibly economical" for its size either; wrong again.

Jakg

Kilty wrote: »

Given the seller has other DAMAGED cars for sale I fail to see why they'd have bothered repairing this one!

Chances are they take a risk on salvage cars... I'm imagine that through trade routes this car came up quite cheap and they've taken a chance with it.

I dont think it's damaged / been in accident - most salvage dealers put "not recorded" etc in their ads when they sell an undamaged car to differentiate it from their "normal" stock.

wba31 wrote: »

What amazes me is that it's a 54/55 plate? and fitted with a casette deck! could you even buy casettes in 2004? my mate bought a 53 plate 3 series this year and it came with a tape deck. i found it hilarious. He has since found the equivalent CD player and swapped it out, but why BMW, a top car maker, were still fitting tape decks onto new cars in 2003-2005 is beyond me. I know it's not the most important thing when buyin a car...

Most German manufacturers used to have a very very low base spec, and then you could spec it up.

I wouldn't want a new car to come with a CD player as chances are I'd just rip it out anyway!

forgotmyname wrote: »

Whatcar says £640 with 300,000 miles from a dealer. Bargain eh.

£2700 - £4600 for a car with 200,000 miles, So its a bit dear.

I think that says more about the valuation guide than the car.... if a 200k 730d was obtainable for £2700, there'd be one on my drive tomorrow.

I'd still say it's a little on the expensive side though, considering the mileage.

forgotmyname wrote: »

Whatcar says £640 with 300,000 miles from a dealer. Bargain eh.

£2700 - £4600 for a car with 200,000 miles, So its a bit dear.

Nice and bold about not recorded i would wonder if they know something about
its history. Covering themselves if you go back and point out the crumpled hidden parts.

They will say no accidents have been recorded as per the advert.

Or alternatively most of their trade is salvage (i.e. stuff thats been crashed and is recorded)

bigdave196

Blimey, where's it been, the Moon?

alx33277

pendulum wrote: »

Haha. What a load of rubbish. I didn't just say what you quoted, try actually reading this thread properly and reading my first post where my point was made. There's no need to get so upset because your "near 40mpg" statement was wrong. 33.2mpg is not "incredibly economical" for its size either; wrong again.

Rubbish? What because you say so?! Not the most intelligent reponse I've seen on a forum, but each to their own. If we all agreed on everything, life would be dull indeed, so I'm already looking forward to your next post! Not that it matters a jot, but I'm far from upset - I'm sat in the morning sun in my garden in West Sussex enjoying a decent coffee, reading The Times and life is good... and nothing you have said so far, or could say, is likely to upset me

Just for clarity, I've read all of your posts and have read them all again. Your first one reads:

"I took the "not recorded" to mean it's been in an accident and repaired but is not recorded as such. Why else would a salvage dealer have it?

It looks well looked after. I suppose if you're driving important people around all day, you have to keep it in good nick and you have to look after it mechanically. £6,000 for a gas guzzler with 400k is probably optimistic, but who knows.

The point you made about the price being optimistic is a good one. The gas guzzler comment however, is wide of the mark.

Again, for clarity, your second post reads:

"It's not a very economical diesel though"

Again, not true given the segment the car sits in - which is why I replied..

?? nearly 40mpg is very economical, especially for a 2 tonne car!

From this, you then change tack with...

It may be ok "for a 2 tonne car" but that's missing the point completely, as the point was people don't want big 2 tonne cars that aren't good on fuel anymore, so they're not worth much.

So, you've jumped from "its a gas guzzler", to "not a very economic diesel" to "my point is that people dont want big 2 tonne cars that arent good on fuel anymore so they're not worth much" That's not a consistent or coherent set of "points" regardless of how many times you get me to read your posts. And it would be hard to understand which "point" you believe I'm missing as you seem to jump from one to the other without much logic.

Anyway, you're clearly the font of all motoring knowledge, so I wait with baited breath to be corrected by you....:D

wba31

Jakg wrote: »

Chances are they take a risk on salvage cars... I'm imagine that through trade routes this car came up quite cheap and they've taken a chance with it.

I dont think it's damaged / been in accident - most salvage dealers put "not recorded" etc in their ads when they sell an undamaged car to differentiate it from their "normal" stock.

Most German manufacturers used to have a very very low base spec, and then you could spec it up.

I wouldn't want a new car to come with a CD player as chances are I'd just rip it out anyway!

I think that says more about the valuation guide than the car.... if a 200k 730d was obtainable for £2700, there'd be one on my drive tomorrow.

I'd still say it's a little on the expensive side though, considering the mileage.Or alternatively most of their trade is salvage (i.e. stuff thats been crashed and is recorded)

what would you install instead of a cd player?

davidjwest

0-60 in 8 seconds, top speed close to 150mph, 2 tonnes of weight, 33 MPG combined is pretty economical for that!

One problem is it's an auto, they are always more thirsty and a manual if driven correctly, there's a manual on Autotrader (no pun intended!) that averages 41.5 MPG, although it is much newer.

Very few manuals around it seems, too much effort to change gear?

The petrol equivalent has similar performance but only 26 MPG.

I bet the petrol sounds nicer though!

pendulum

alx33277 wrote: »

Rubbish? What because you say so?! <snip huge text block>

Do you know something... I'm not even going to bother to read that book of drivel you've just wasted your time typing out.

alx33277

pendulum wrote: »

Do you know something... I'm not even going to bother to read that book of drivel you've just wasted your time typing out.

Bet you do

rev_henry

davidjwest wrote: »

0-60 in 8 seconds, top speed close to 150mph, 2 tonnes of weight, 33 MPG combined is pretty economical for that!

One problem is it's an auto, they are always more thirsty and a manual if driven correctly, there's a manual on Autotrader (no pun intended!) that averages 41.5 MPG, although it is much newer.

Very few manuals around it seems, too much effort to change gear?

The petrol equivalent has similar performance but only 26 MPG.

I bet the petrol sounds nicer though!

The 08- normal auto 730d does 41mpg and the 740d does 40mpg. HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE??!! I have every intention of buying something like this when I graduate and have money.