Calling all 5 Series owners

spank_inferno

Hello All.

I'm seeking feedback on the BMW 520 / 523 1997 - 1999 (pre current model).
Its for my father who is thinking of treating himself to a bit of comfort & luxury

The criteria is a large comfortable car, deacent performance
Low milage (weekends mostly) circa 5000 miles per year.
Must be reliable and low maintenance.

Would the above bmw's fit the bill?
CBG.ie reader reviews were a mixed bag.
What do the boardsies think?

many thanks

Eoin

There's a recent thread on this (BMW 523 v CLK). Biggest thing to look out for is the NIKASIL issue on the 523, which is covered in detail on that thread. I'll dig out the link if you can't find it. 520 may be a little sluggish.

Edit - thread is here: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055303401

quarryman

From my experience, a 97-99 520/523 will NOT be low maintenance.

Check honest-john for a full list.

joseywales

I have had a 00 520i for past 3 years and have been very happy with it. No repairs other than annual service save for the odd light bulb. Great car all round. I agree that the 520i could do with a bit more power, hence have bought a 05 520 2.2.

http://www.driving.ie/usedcars/index.cfm?fuseaction=car&carID=1056121

Stevie Dakota

Not sure of your budget but if you can, try and a go for the 2.2 litre engine from 2001, it is a much better proposition than the 2.0, you gain performance and economy is much the same. Aim for as low mileage as you can afford with a FSH and you should not have worries with big bills. Auto would be a must. MPac kit look good, but firm up the ride a bit, maybe not what your Dad wants. However, any BMW of this age needs care but there are a lot of good independents who can look after these cars quite reasonably.

Find a good one and you Dad may never own a better car.

http://www.carzone.ie/used-cars/BMW/520/Auto-Leather/928125/

E92

That shape 5 series is quite possibly the best car that you might actually be able to buy of the 90s, and I still think that the current 5 series is not as good as it.

Family friends have had several 520is, none gave a day's bother, including one 99 model with 160k on the clock, which still drives like a dream.

Though obviously others may have a different story. The main thing is of course avoid the models that have the Nikasil problem. If the engine has Double VANOS then there is no Nikasil to worry about though.

Don't expect the 520i to be in a hurry, but hey that's what the accelerator pedal, rev counter and red line are for:D!

quenching

quarryman wrote: »

From my experience, a 97-99 520/523 will NOT be low maintenance.

Check honest-john for a full list.

Have to agree, great car to drive, very comfortable but of only average reliability and EXPENSIVE to maintain. Had a 97 523 so speaking from experience.

ballinloughan

Had a 1997 540i - fantastic machine. Only issue was to replace a oxygen sensor on the exhaust. Beautiful machine.

macnab

I love those 5 series but they can be very expensive to fix. I have had 3 of them so far. 1996 523i manual which did about 30mpg and was reliable. 1998 523i Auto which did about 24mpg and liked a lot of oil, it had the Nikosil problem. The Auto gearbox went at about 90,000 miles. Buy a 5 series only if it has a full service history and starts from cold without hesitation. I think the Nikosil problem was resolved from 1999 onwards.

Dermo123

In Feburary I bought a 1998 523i manual with 164k miles on it. There was a rear wheel bearing gone which cost 170 euro to fix. I bought a set of 16 inch alloys with tyres for 400 euro. It runs very sweetly and returns 35mpg easily (or so the on board compuer tells me.) I even got it to read 40mpg on a run to Rosslare. Now at 168K it is solid and rattle free. It has the NIKASIL engine but this is only a problem if it was owned in the UK where there was high amounts of sulpher in the fuel. Mine is original Irish and you should look to get one like this if possible or else get a non- nikasil later model manufactured after May 1998. I only paid 3000 euro for mine and put about €600 into it as mentioned above. It uses no oil so don't be put off by mileage if all the right boxes tick. Hope this helps

Eoin

Dermo123 wrote: »

In Feburary I bought a 1998 523i manual with 164k miles on it. There was a rear wheel bearing gone which cost 170 euro to fix. I bought a set of 16 inch alloys with tyres for 400 euro. It runs very sweetly and returns 35mpg easily (or so the on board compuer tells me.) I even got it to read 40mpg on a run to Rosslare. Now at 168K it is solid and rattle free. It has the NIKASIL engine but this is only a problem if it was owned in the UK where there was high amounts of sulpher in the fuel. Mine is original Irish and you should look to get one like this if possible or else get a non- nikasil later model manufactured after May 1998. I only paid 3000 euro for mine and put about €600 into it as mentioned above. It uses no oil so don't be put off by mileage if all the right boxes tick. Hope this helps

30+ MPG is very impressive, I'm only getting 22 MPG or so from my 525

As I said in the other thread though, one of the guys on this forum had the NIKASIL problem on an Irish car, but as Unkle pointed out it could have been fueled up North for a while.

Also, after March 98 isn't a guarantee - I'll quote the same part of the article I did in the other thread. While it's unlikely to be a problem after that date, it's a very expensive fix, so well worth keeping in mind.

Once one has established that the engine is an M52, the next stage is to work out whether it has Nikasil liners or not. Steel liners were introduced into production at Week 10 in 1998, i.e. March 1998. Cars built before then will have Nikasil liners; but that is not the same thing as saying that cars sold after then will have steel liners - cars can sit around for a while, and it is the build date that is critical, not the date on which the vehicle is put into service. Contrary to certain information, the engine code change from "S6 3" to "S6 4" did not coincide with the move to steel liners and therefore not all "S6 3" cars are Nikasil. Whilst it is probably safe to assume that any car sold during 1999 or later is safe from the Nikasil issue, my advice (to be on the safe side) has to be to be very wary of any M52 and check the block material with BMW before buying it.

http://www.bavarian-board.co.uk/nikasil.htm

Eoin

Cyrus wrote: »

the auto kills them eoin as does city driving

Sport mode + kickdown probably isn't helping hugely either!

Cyrus

the auto kills the mpg eoin as does city driving a long spin should see well over 30

@ the OP

id look out for a facelift sport, so a late 00 onwards 525/530i, super super cars, low vrt at the moment, and a nice spec usually aswell.

bmws arent cheap to fix but there are lots of good independents around and if looked after they are pretty trouble free.

the 520/525/530i cost the same to maintain and arent miles apart in fuel consumption...so get the 530

Dermo123

eoin_s wrote: »

30+ MPG is very impressive, I'm only getting 22 MPG or so from my 525

[/url][/B]

I must admit I find myself trying to drive economically to keep that mpg dial swinging towards the left more than the right. I still bring her up above the legal limit speed wise etc and use the acceleration available when required etc. It is the first car I've had with the econometer guage and its become a bit of an obsession i'm afraid. I've even noticed a headwind effecting what I can squeeze out of the fuel, sad I know.
Despite this carry on I still think it is a remarkably economical car for a petrol 2.5litre six cylinder. I bet there are many people driving poorly their 1.6 petrols and not getting a whole lot more mpg wise.

E92

1.6 Petrols are often in cars the size of a 5 series these days so they must be completely and utterly underpowered. Fortunately, thanks to the VRT changes in July, it's a problem that we will soon no longer have to worry about:)!

Any pre facelift 6 pot petrol 5 series with Double VANOS i.e. the M52TÜ rather than the M52 engine won't have the Nikasil issue.

Eoin

E92 wrote: »

Any pre facelift 6 pot petrol 5 series with Double VANOS i.e. the M52TÜ rather than the M52 engine won't have the Nikasil issue.

All the relevant information is in the link I've posted in this, and the other thread.

junkyard

I've had 12 E39 BMW's from 1996 to 2004, petrol and diesel and still have an M5, of all the cars I've had over the years I have to say the E39 5 series is with out doubt one of the best built, reliable, refined amd decent cars I've ever come across. Just like every other car they have to be looked after, I wouldn't say they're more troublesome than any other make either.

Mr.Diagnostic

eoin_s wrote: »

All the relevant information is in the link I've posted in this, and the other thread.

Hi Eoin,

I am not so sure that the link you posted is the definitive source of info on the nikasil issue. I am not so sure there is a definitive source.
Paper never refused ink, or whatever the internet equivalent is springs to mind. Whoever authored that link seems to have gathered info from various sources and put them all together. I get the impression from a few small details in that article that he has never worked on an M52 engine. I cant see any reason to completely accept the contents.

I don’t claim to have all the answers on this but I do have a few logical, researched thoughts.
One thing that bothered me from the very beginning of the nikasil issue was that the fuel was blamed. That never sounded right. If the nikasil coating was of uniform thickness and quality then why would the fuel only effect some of them?

Have you ever heard of the other problem with those nikasil blocks? The other problem is that the head studs pull the threads out of the block. I have checked these and found them to be oval. Not perfectly oval but not round either. The same blocks had some ovality of the cyls too. These blocks had suffered head gasket failure. The deck of the block in each case was warped too. This all seems to add up to a weakness in the structure of the block.

Food for thought

Eoin

The cause of the problem could well be more BMW's fault then that page leads on, but how to identify the engine etc is correct as far as I know which is the main reason I posted it.

Seth Brundle

Mr.Diagnostic wrote: »

Hi Eoin,

I am not so sure that the link you posted is the definitive source of info on the nikasil issue. I am not so sure there is a definitive source.
Paper never refused ink, or whatever the internet equivalent is springs to mind. Whoever authored that link seems to have gathered info from various sources and put them all together. I get the impression from a few small details in that article that he has never worked on an M52 engine. I cant see any reason to completely accept the contents.

I copied that page from a Google archive after the site went down. It seemed to be the most informative source at the time. Anyhow, I don't think nikasil is as much of a concern nowadays.

As for the E39, I drive a '97 523i (possibly soon to be economically written off ). Anyhow, its a very comfortable car to drive and generally as reliable as any other car. In saying that my water pump died last Friday but this issue occured in my wife's last Pug a few years back.

I find that the majority of issues tend to be electrically related than mechanical and for a car of this age there tends not to be any more than I would expect from any car.

I gather that the 520i is a bit sluggish compared to the 523i. Personally, I'd go for the 528i as it has the better power of the three but these are more scarce (and tax is higher).

If you do go for an E39 then make sure it has as many extras as possible:
>=17" alloys
dual climate control (digital)
sunroof
6 CD
leather
OBC

Eoin

kbannon wrote: »

I gather that the 520i is a bit sluggish compared to the 523i. Personally, I'd go for the 528i as it has the better power of the three but these are more scarce (and tax is higher).

Or the 525, which isn't much slower than the 528 and is a newer engine I think.

Seth Brundle

eoin_s wrote: »

Or the 525, which isn't much slower than the 528 and is a newer engine I think.

True but possibly outside of the OPs fathers budget as the 525i came out in 2000.

spank_inferno wrote: »

I'm seeking feedback on the BMW 520 / 523 1997 - 1999 (pre current model).

Mr.Diagnostic

Just thought this may be of interest. I had a 97 520 in today with 70k, origional Irish car suffering from Nikasil.

unkel

Mr.Diagnostic wrote: »

Just thought this may be of interest. I had a 97 520 in today with 70k, origional Irish car suffering from Nikasil.

Thanks for the update and imho any originally Irish BMW suffering from Nikasil is interesting! Unlikely at this stage that there is any history to prove / disprove the car was ever / regularly filled with high-sulphur North Sea oil derived petrol, etc. though...

Still, by far the most BMW cars with the Nikasil suffering engines were originally sold in Germany. And there was no Nikasil issue there*

*or in any other continental EU country as far as I've ever noticed from posts

quarryman

Mr.Diagnostic wrote: »

Just thought this may be of interest. I had a 97 520 in today with 70k, origional Irish car suffering from Nikasil.

noooooo!

gotta pretend i never read that.

ps, you have a pm on octane.

Mac 3

Mr.Diagnostic wrote: »

Just thought this may be of interest. I had a 97 520 in today with 70k, origional Irish car suffering from Nikasil.

There seems to be a belief that if it cropped up by now, it never will. This latest case rubbishes that theory.

When I went back to the "experts" in 2004 with a 320i with Nikisil symptoms, they dismissed nikisil straight away saying that the problem only existed in the UK (and the US before that) and if it was Nikisil, it would have raised its head well by now. Again that was in 2004. BMW Irl didnt want to know about it.

PS Apologies to OP, we're wandering off topic..;)

Mac 3

unkel wrote: »

Still, by far the most BMW cars with the Nikasil suffering engines were originally sold in Germany. And there was no Nikasil issue there*

*or in any other continental EU country as far as I've ever noticed from posts

When I had my troubles with Nikasil, I was told that the quality of the Petrol sold in Germany and on the continent was far higher than what we get here. Thats probably why this the problem never existed on the Continent. I've only ever heard of premature bore wear in sixes being found in Ireland and the UK. Apparantly BMW wasn't the only one affected by something like this. Jaguar were using similar processes and the same happened with some of thier cars.