# Goodbye to 335d



## tonyspumoni (May 23, 2010)

Sold the second of two 335d's yesterday. No long tales here - the story is a simple one: unrivaled combination of power and efficiency undone by an under-engineered emissions system. I parted with my 2010 335d at around 70k miles last year after having been through many SES lights, Nox sensor replacements, EGR replacement, oxygen sensor replacement, and finally the entire SCR tank, not to mention a turbo hose, a sunroof that wouldn't close, and a front end needing constant re-alignment. Figured it had to be the car so I got it all put back together and sold it. Replaced it with a 2011 335d Msport with 17k miles on it late last year. Three SES lights so far, all reading out as Nox faults.

The first SES light on the 2011 Msport was coincident with a bad battery and when the tech ran diagnostics, it read out "low voltage" to, I think, SCR tank. Replaced the battery and the light quelled. Light came back a week later. Drove it for two weeks owing to scheduling issues and the day before my appointment the light extinguished. But I took it in anyway and my SA, who is a saint, said that if the light was on that long, the car would recall the codes. This time it was the EGR valve which, after replacement, also solved the SES problem. But I could see the writing on the wall and, while the dealer had it in the shop I asked them to quote me a straight up sale (I own it outright and wasn't looking for a trade).

While I was pondering its replacement the SES light came on a third time. I drove it straight back to the dealer with the title and asked them if the quote was good. "Yep", they said. "Great," I said, "Here's the keys and the title. Write me a check". Five minutes later I was car-less, diesel-less, and BMW-less. I had to walk to a spot where my wife could find me to fetch me with my personalized plates in hand. It was an tough walk, filled with both relief and regret, like parting with a long-lingering but loved and troubled relative. I'll miss owning the road but boy I'm not going to miss all the headaches associated with the poor reliability.

I'll miss everyone and hope that others can keep their cars longer. No one loved these cars more than me and few, just based on feedback here, have driven them harder than I have. Perhaps that is the problem - we shall see.

Thanks for all the good conversations, feedback, insights, and advice.


Sent from BimmerApp mobile app


----------



## d geek (Nov 26, 2008)

You have my condolences on your bad experiences. What do you think you'll replace it with?


----------



## tonyspumoni (May 23, 2010)

2015 WRX - same day I sold the 'd'. I want reliability, performance, and efficiency in that order of priorities. The WRX has less precise steering (not surprising since most electronic setups and all I've tested pale in comparison to a good hydraulic one), but corners way better and has a road feel more to my liking. Reminds me tremenously of the late 1980's 3 series. Still breaking it in so cannot yet say much regarding grunt, but it's a manual and even well below the redline has that same back-in-the-seat feel when you plow it a bit.

I was so disgusted with mechanical issues that I actually went as low rent as I could - no sunroof, no nav, no heated seats, no power seats, no electronic dampers - just a nice motor, a great suspension, and AWD.

I looks ugly as a skunk - I will genuinely miss the physical beauty of the 335d - but, like a hot but high-maintenance gal, I can get used to ugly.


Sent from BimmerApp mobile app


----------



## tonyspumoni (May 23, 2010)

I forgot to add two things. First, one day in the 335d Msport I turned it on and the display was solid orange. I waited about 30 seconds, turned the car off, restarted it, and got the normal screen. Yikes!!!

Second, as to efficiency, much is made of efficiency of the diesel platforms in terms of mpg. Yet it wasn't til I started looking deeply at this that I discovered something usually overlooked - that a gallon of diesel has 14% more carbon than a gallon of petrol - this according to the EPA. I knew that all that efficiency came from somewhere and that is in part where it comes from. Yet I can afford all the fuel I need, so money is not the reason I sought and seek efficiency, but rather to minimize my carbon footprint. I owned two Priuses and my wife still has one. The bottom line there is that if I'm getting 27 mpg overall in my "d" and 24 mpg in a WRX, from a CO(2) perspective, it's a wash. And I do so little straight freeway driving that I wasn't able to really leverage the excess efficiency the "d" offers over and above the 14% penalty off the top.


Sent from BimmerApp mobile app


----------



## 2010335dsport (Apr 21, 2014)

This is the saddest thing I've seen today but it's understandable. My d is a lemon from SoCal also due to CBU so I'm wondering of the driving conditions and climate don't also play a factor. I've put about 4k miles on mine in the last couple months with no issues in AZ. I hope it gives me many more. It gets driven in sport and manual shifted quite a bit, is always warmed up before she gets goosed, and usually sees 80mph + freeway romps for quite a few miles when it is driven. 

Good luck with your WRX. I agree, not as sexy looking as the e90, but I do love the way they sound and wouldn't mind driving one for a bit. 


Sent from BimmerApp mobile app


----------



## stevehecht (Apr 13, 2007)

Tony,

I'm sure you're grateful that you had so many good years and memories with an unmatchable car and powertrain. All the memories aren't good, but they rarely are...


----------



## tonyspumoni (May 23, 2010)

Agreed. It's a real pity my two examples proved to be such maintenance headaches because there is nothing in my experience quite like it. One friend had a Porsche GT3 that we used to hot around - lots of top end but it rode like it didn't have shocks and if you really wanted to go you had to rev the hell out of it. I'm sure it was designed for that, but you had to know what gear to you wanted to be in. The 335d has the widest powerband of any car I ever drove. Stomp, fly, grin, repeat.

And besides emissions, the cars were well within my tolerance for 'bad stuff happening'. The sunroof didn't break, it just sat too long in the garage and the lubricant must've hardened a bit. The dealer greased it up and re-adjusted the sensor and it was just fine. But oh those emissions......EGR, Nox, and O2 sensors oh my!

I'll admit that it is quite possible these problems are of my own making because I just drove these cars too hard. Maybe there is a sweet spot somewhere between 'take it easy and get CBU' and 'drive like a nut and get EGR, Nox, O2, SCR'. I certainly did NOT have CBU on either car according to my SA, but worrying about the emissions system falling apart at 71k, right after the Cali-mandated 70k emissions warranty expires kept me up nights.




Sent from BimmerApp mobile app


----------



## FredoinSF (Nov 29, 2009)

tonyspumoni said:


> {SNIP}
> 
> like a hot but high-maintenance gal, I can get used to ugly.


Best of luck with the Subie. Got decent reviews, should be a fun car with low depreciation to boot. Sad testimonial about BMW delivering yet another powertrain that is exhilarating in many ways, yet so trouble prone and expensive to maintain that even enthusiasts are left with no choice but to abandon ship.

Oh, and that line above. Best laugh of the day so far. :rofl:


----------



## glangford (Dec 11, 2013)

WRX should be fun. I took a leap of faith with the 328d, hoping they've got it better the second time around. Time will tell.


----------



## F32Fleet (Jul 14, 2010)

Hate to say it but the NOX sensors seem to go at ~60k, but once their fixed your good for another 60k+ miles. Diesel NOX take a pounding apparently. Same goes for the SCR. One and done.


----------



## Pierre Louis (Oct 23, 2011)

I went into the BMW ownership experience with my eyes wide open. The brand is not known for its reliability, attention to traditional quality or safety. Older BMW engines are legendary for blowing head gaskets etc.

But the 335d has been around a while as well as the e90 so I thought that some of the issues would be improved, as all cars up until about 2012 have been improving steadily in JD Powers' surveys.

I should have realized how pollution control "innovations" would affect a car as I also once owned a US version Audi 100LS which had the mid-1970's plague on engines and reliability. The only thing/system that didn't break on that Audi was the VDO clock!

So it looks like an extended warranty is in order, but I am generally very good to a car and find few reasons to get such a warranty. Time will tell.

As far as what my next car would/should be, it would have been easy if they had an F30 335d for the US, but with my aging back, a Mercedes (or gasp, Lexus) may be a next step, if I can still afford it. The 328d for some reason leaves me cold - its too "jimmied up" compared to, say, an honest Golf TDi with manual transmission. 

PL


----------



## TDIwyse (Sep 17, 2010)

tonyspumoni said:


> Second, as to efficiency, much is made of efficiency of the diesel platforms in terms of mpg. Yet it wasn't til I started looking deeply at this that I discovered something usually overlooked - that a gallon of diesel has 14% more carbon than a gallon of petrol - this according to the EPA. I knew that all that efficiency came from somewhere and that is in part where it comes from. Yet I can afford all the fuel I need, so money is not the reason I sought and seek efficiency, but rather to minimize my carbon footprint. I owned two Priuses and my wife still has one. The bottom line there is that if I'm getting 27 mpg overall in my "d" and 24 mpg in a WRX, from a CO(2) perspective, it's a wash. And I do so little straight freeway driving that I wasn't able to really leverage the excess efficiency the "d" offers over and above the 14% penalty off the top.
> 
> Sent from BimmerApp mobile app


Hope you enjoy your new ride.

Curious for the link to the 14% more energy content. It was my understanding that BTU content of diesel and gasoline were ~127,464 BTU/US gal (http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/042308lcfs_ulsd.pdf table 4.04) vs. ~116,000 BTU/US (http://zfacts.com/p/436.html). So gasoline BTU/ULSD BTU would be ~91%. So maybe a 9-10% delta of the efficiency difference would be due to the higher energy density.


----------



## Pierre Louis (Oct 23, 2011)

TDIwyse said:


> Hope you enjoy your new ride.
> 
> Curious for the link to the 14% more energy content. It was my understanding that BTU content of diesel and gasoline were ~127,464 BTU/US gal (http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/042308lcfs_ulsd.pdf table 4.04) vs. ~116,000 BTU/US (http://zfacts.com/p/436.html). So gasoline BTU/ULSD BTU would be ~91%. So maybe a 9-10% delta of the efficiency difference would be due to the higher energy density.


Yes, the diesel engine is still thermodynamically more efficient than gasoline. That is why some manufacturers are looking at compression-ignition for gasoline engines.

PL


----------



## Hoooper (Jun 17, 2013)

TDIwyse said:


> Hope you enjoy your new ride.
> 
> Curious for the link to the 14% more energy content. It was my understanding that BTU content of diesel and gasoline were ~127,464 BTU/US gal (http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/042308lcfs_ulsd.pdf table 4.04) vs. ~116,000 BTU/US (http://zfacts.com/p/436.html). So gasoline BTU/ULSD BTU would be ~91%. So maybe a 9-10% delta of the efficiency difference would be due to the higher energy density.


Your info is probably accurate, but he said carbon not energy. He also said it was based on the EPA's website. The EPA website is as much a reputable site on the different forms of "carbon pollution" as Alex Jones' site is a reputable source for info on Obama's college transcript. 14% more carbon is a pretty meaningless stat, regardless. If it comes out as a heavier than air soot thats quite different than coming out in CO2 form.

For what its worth, the molecular structures of unmodified and no additives gas and diesel are very different. 8 molecules of carbon for gas and 16 for diesel (diesel apparently being much larger). Im not doing the math on how it would work out on a per gallon measurement though.


----------



## tonyspumoni (May 23, 2010)

Hoooper said:


> Your info is probably accurate, but he said carbon not energy. He also said it was based on the EPA's website. The EPA website is as much a reputable site on the different forms of "carbon pollution" as Alex Jones' site is a reputable source for info on Obama's college transcript. 14% more carbon is a pretty meaningless stat, regardless. If it comes out as a heavier than air soot thats quite different than coming out in CO2 form.
> 
> For what its worth, the molecular structures of unmodified and no additives gas and diesel are very different. 8 molecules of carbon for gas and 16 for diesel (diesel apparently being much larger). Im not doing the math on how it would work out on a per gallon measurement though.


Sent from BimmerApp mobile app


----------



## tonyspumoni (May 23, 2010)

tonyspumoni said:


> Sent from BimmerApp mobile app


rats. damn iphone. sorry for the blank reply. terrific to be going through this thoroughly. i am usually take this stuff at face value and let the smarter folks correct it all up.

i am primarily concerned from an ethical/moral perspective in the CO2 component of emissions. if diesel has 14% more carbon and most of either fuel's hydrocarbons are converted to H2O and CO2, then I just reasoned that diesel would produce that much more CO2 than gasoline per unit volume. Part of this assumption rests on my view of what the EGR system is supposed to do.

At any rate I am sure I can no longer lay any claim to dong my part to reduce CO2 with a WRX. I will probably have to spend weekends in the wife's prius.

Sent from BimmerApp mobile app


----------



## tonyspumoni (May 23, 2010)

Ah sorry. the source for the CO2 is as follows:

www.chargepoint.com/files/420f05001.pdf

it is a epa doc from 2005 comparing co2 from gas and diesel.

Sent from BimmerApp mobile app


----------



## glangford (Dec 11, 2013)

A couple of misconceptions here. Gas is actually a more efficient cycle at constant compression ratios. Diesel can run at higher compression ratios without predetonation which is what makes them more efficient. 

As far as molecular structures go, gas is roughly iso-octane. Average chemical formula for diesel is C12H23. All of these are mixtures of various isomers and molecular weight sizes. Gas ranges in carbon from 4 to 12, but isooctane is a good average. In diesel C ranges from 10 to 15 carbon atoms. But all gas and diesel is a distillate mixture.


----------



## Hoooper (Jun 17, 2013)

That article looks like it is essentially saying 99% of the carbon in fuel is converted to co2 upon combustion. Families who have had members die from co poisoning would beg to differ. Maybe I'm not interpreting it correctly. Either way, based on their numbers you're doing better with diesel as long as you get more than 14.4% better mileage, which most of us are when compared to equivalent cars. As usual its a balancing act. I suspect you're in a distinct minority in having put much value in the eco friendly nature of this car. Good luck with the wrx. You can at least take comfort in that it was built in a zero waste facility.


----------



## 335dFan (Nov 8, 2012)

My 335d has about 26 months and about 33k miles on it now, so I am also starting to ponder whether to unload and replace, or keep with extended warranty. It's a good time to ponder, as I am relocating to Oregon to Maryland. So I ask my self: is it still the right car for me? There is no doubt that in its current state of health there is nothing that I could get that would satisfy me in terms of efficiency, power, handling, and practicality, all subjective measures to some degree. But the overall package is so great, and since I have not yet had problems, it is all on the plus side of the ledger. I have some long road trips planned for this summer, back to Pagosa Springs for another BMW gathering in early August.

But I am thinking that running errands in Portland in the D is not the best use for it nor particularly good for it. So I am looking for a used or new utility vehicle. I am actually looking at one of the following: Kia Soul, Nissan Cube, Scion xB, Toyota Tacoma, or Ford F-150. My wife is less than thrilled about having a pickup in the front driveway, and I don't really need a pickup, so one of the little box-mobiles may be the ticket. That would save some miles on the D and reserve it for the use that it is best suited for.

For a replacement if it comes to that. The WRX is on my list, as is the WRX STI, the GTI, and even the VW Sportwagen (I think they are dropping the Jetta out of the name, right?). Does anyone know if the aftermarket has some nice suspension goodies for the Sportwagen? I honestly care more about the handling than the power, although the D power will be very hard to get over. I would like something that would be good for year round driving in the Pacific Northwest, but fun too. I suppose a Porsche Macan would be fun, but I am no longer in the mood to spend a ton of money on a vehicle.


Sent from BimmerApp mobile app


----------

