F31 330d xdrive economy - not great
Discussion
julian64 said:
REALIST123 said:
julian64 said:
The point is that the op is talking about dissapointing fuel economy.
The implication is that car companies are selling cars based on unrealistically advertised mpg figures.
For pistonheaders this is doubly frustrating because the idea that people can retain performance and any sort of fuel economy is looking like a marketing hoodwink once the car has been driven away from the dealership.
SOOOOOOOOOO
you need to compare an old world fun car with the new world equivalent, and actually look at the 'pistonheadfun:fuel cost' ratio. Hence my post and hence the comparison not only being relevant, but actually bang on thread?
Why are the car companies doing that? Where do they say you will achieve their stated mileage when averaging "90-100mph?The implication is that car companies are selling cars based on unrealistically advertised mpg figures.
For pistonheaders this is doubly frustrating because the idea that people can retain performance and any sort of fuel economy is looking like a marketing hoodwink once the car has been driven away from the dealership.
SOOOOOOOOOO
you need to compare an old world fun car with the new world equivalent, and actually look at the 'pistonheadfun:fuel cost' ratio. Hence my post and hence the comparison not only being relevant, but actually bang on thread?
Frankly anyone who expects to get anywhere near the manufacturers' figures driving at those speeds is naive in the extreme and any 'disappointment' is well deserved.
I've never found it difficult to achieve or better manufacturers figures driving 'normally, nor found it hard to get much worse figures whilst pushing along.
If you watch an advert on TV for a BMW 330 you will not see them driving at 43 miles an hour. You will see references to the joy of life, the love of cars and their ability to affect you emotionally. A half naked women will sit beside you enjoying the wind through her hair and the car will speed off into the distant setting sun at warp factor six.
Note the advert doesn't show a OAP accountant watching his speedo through his bifocals to make sure it doesn't move away from peak fuel efficiency at 'you are a boring git' speeds.
Obviously the OP, if you read between the lines like to enjoy his transport at spirited speeds. I too like to enjoy my car at spirited speeds. Hence I think the comparison is justified at spirited speeds.
If this was a thread about how boring you can be in a car rather than real world for an enthusiast you would undoubtedly have my full attention.
You said:
"The implication is that car companies are selling cars based on unrealistically advertised mpg figures."
Show me where any manufacturer advertises a fuel consumption that might be achieved when driving at "spirited speeds".
The conditions under which advertised fuel consumption is achieved are well published and documented. To expect anywhere near that when pushing on is, as I said, naive, if not downright dumb.
julian64 said:
The point is that the op is talking about dissapointing fuel economy.
The implication is that car companies are selling cars based on unrealistically advertised mpg figures.
For pistonheaders this is doubly frustrating because the idea that people can retain performance and any sort of fuel economy is looking like a marketing hoodwink once the car has been driven away from the dealership.
SOOOOOOOOOO
you need to compare an old world fun car with the new world equivalent, and actually look at the 'pistonheadfun:fuel cost' ratio. Hence my post and hence the comparison not only being relevant, but actually bang on thread?
I hear what you're saying and I guess we are in the same camp when it comes to cars! (love the e39 M5 BTW) but the new raft of performance diesels do make sense. The implication is that car companies are selling cars based on unrealistically advertised mpg figures.
For pistonheaders this is doubly frustrating because the idea that people can retain performance and any sort of fuel economy is looking like a marketing hoodwink once the car has been driven away from the dealership.
SOOOOOOOOOO
you need to compare an old world fun car with the new world equivalent, and actually look at the 'pistonheadfun:fuel cost' ratio. Hence my post and hence the comparison not only being relevant, but actually bang on thread?
I've had a new touring 330d for the weekend (it was a choice between the M3 and one of those) and driving it purposefully it gave me mid 30'smpg vs the 20mpg I get in the m3 I eventually chose.
On a cruise it achieved high 40's more than double the M3 and over 25k per year that does start to make financial sense.
But I'm stupid so will continue to drive a V8.
REALIST123 said:
I've never found it difficult to achieve or better manufacturers figures driving 'normally'
I'd agree with that for a petrol car but my experience with two BMW diesels was that they wouldn't do their respective combined figures unless driven pretty gently (which sort of defeated the point in having a "performance" diesel in my book!). However, regardless of the car and the fuel I'd agree it's unrealistic to expect to hit the combined figure if you're driving at 90-100mph!hornetrider said:
At 80 my 550i is achieving circa 30mpg. From my point of view, if I bought a diesel I'd want it to be achieving north of 40mpg at 80mph on the motorway. If it's not I'd find that highly disappointing and not worth switching from petrol.
Well given the 2 generations old 330d at that speed returns 42-45mpg it seems bonkers that the newer gen is much lower (I've driven the LCI 330d E90 and that was a good 8-10mpg better than what my old 330d could achieve so the 8 speed gearbox must be rubbish even though it allows 1,100rpm at 70mph in 8th or that the 4x4 is so sapping of mpg ?Christ my C5 RS6 which averages 18.3mpg overall if I went on a long M way run its into the 27mpg territory that's 450bhp 4x4 a bigger car than the F31 only a 5 speed box
Hi all, thank you for your comments.
Just to say, I’m realistic about fuel economy and I bought the car for its performance, not on the basis that I’d get 55mpg. For me it’s about enjoying the power and driving it how I want to and if I get good economy then that’s a bonus.
What does surprise me is on a day to day basis driven gently mostly on the urban cycle my wife is only getting low 30’s which is a long way short of the combined cycle figure.
I'm just interested to know if anyone has managed to get anywhere near 50mpg ?
Just to say, I’m realistic about fuel economy and I bought the car for its performance, not on the basis that I’d get 55mpg. For me it’s about enjoying the power and driving it how I want to and if I get good economy then that’s a bonus.
What does surprise me is on a day to day basis driven gently mostly on the urban cycle my wife is only getting low 30’s which is a long way short of the combined cycle figure.
I'm just interested to know if anyone has managed to get anywhere near 50mpg ?
It is idiotic to expect any measure of fuel economy when travelling at such high speeds.
The power required to overcome air resistance increases mostly in line with the cube of the speed, and thus the energy required per unit distance is roughly proportional to the square of speed. Above 30mph it is air drag which is the dominant force to overcome. Driving at 45 rather than 65 mph requires about one-third the power to overcome wind resistance. Increasing speed to 90 mph from 65 mph increases the power requirement by 2.6 times. Rolling resistance however is roughly proportional to speed. Add it to the mix and a few other factors like lift drag and you get a miles per gallon decrease of about 90% in conventional tech petrol engined cars between 65 and 90mph.
To get 30mpg is a miracle in your BMW is a testament to the engineering involved.
The car will perform the same figures as those achieved under test if subject to the same test conditions, I guarantee it. You and your wife's driving techniques are wildly at odds with the test profile though. The figures are therefore irrelevant. Eco Pro is all about helping you adapt your driving technique toward a more efficient one. If you ignore the techniques then it can do nothing.
The power required to overcome air resistance increases mostly in line with the cube of the speed, and thus the energy required per unit distance is roughly proportional to the square of speed. Above 30mph it is air drag which is the dominant force to overcome. Driving at 45 rather than 65 mph requires about one-third the power to overcome wind resistance. Increasing speed to 90 mph from 65 mph increases the power requirement by 2.6 times. Rolling resistance however is roughly proportional to speed. Add it to the mix and a few other factors like lift drag and you get a miles per gallon decrease of about 90% in conventional tech petrol engined cars between 65 and 90mph.
To get 30mpg is a miracle in your BMW is a testament to the engineering involved.
The car will perform the same figures as those achieved under test if subject to the same test conditions, I guarantee it. You and your wife's driving techniques are wildly at odds with the test profile though. The figures are therefore irrelevant. Eco Pro is all about helping you adapt your driving technique toward a more efficient one. If you ignore the techniques then it can do nothing.
lambo911 said:
Hi all, thank you for your comments.
Just to say, I’m realistic about fuel economy and I bought the car for its performance, not on the basis that I’d get 55mpg. For me it’s about enjoying the power and driving it how I want to and if I get good economy then that’s a bonus.
What does surprise me is on a day to day basis driven gently mostly on the urban cycle my wife is only getting low 30’s which is a long way short of the combined cycle figure.
I'm just interested to know if anyone has managed to get anywhere near 50mpg ?
You have answered the question in the above post "why does my wife get low 30's mpg in mainly URBAN use instead of 55mpg "Just to say, I’m realistic about fuel economy and I bought the car for its performance, not on the basis that I’d get 55mpg. For me it’s about enjoying the power and driving it how I want to and if I get good economy then that’s a bonus.
What does surprise me is on a day to day basis driven gently mostly on the urban cycle my wife is only getting low 30’s which is a long way short of the combined cycle figure.
I'm just interested to know if anyone has managed to get anywhere near 50mpg ?
55mpg is the COMBINED cycle your not comparing like with like - take a look at the urban mpg of your car from BMW website that is what you need to compare it against.
The point some have made is IF your only getting the mpg you state then you may as well have gone for a higher powered petrol to enjoy too and be barely any different in fuel costs.
converted lurker said:
It is idiotic to expect any measure of fuel economy when travelling at such high speeds.
The power required to overcome air resistance increases mostly in line with the cube of the speed, and thus the energy required per unit distance is roughly proportional to the square of speed. Above 30mph it is air drag which is the dominant force to overcome. Driving at 45 rather than 65 mph requires about one-third the power to overcome wind resistance. Increasing speed to 90 mph from 65 mph increases the power requirement by 2.6 times. Rolling resistance however is roughly proportional to speed. Add it to the mix and a few other factors like lift drag and you get a miles per gallon decrease of about 90% in conventional tech petrol engined cars between 65 and 90mph.
To get 30mpg is a miracle in your BMW is a testament to the engineering involved.
The car will perform the same figures as those achieved under test if subject to the same test conditions, I guarantee it. You and your wife's driving techniques are wildly at odds with the test profile though. The figures are therefore irrelevant. Eco Pro is all about helping you adapt your driving technique toward a more efficient one. If you ignore the techniques then it can do nothing.
You are massively missing the point. At least I think you are. Forget the posted economy figure for a minute. Arguing with the op that he's driving too fast is not the argument here as I see it.The power required to overcome air resistance increases mostly in line with the cube of the speed, and thus the energy required per unit distance is roughly proportional to the square of speed. Above 30mph it is air drag which is the dominant force to overcome. Driving at 45 rather than 65 mph requires about one-third the power to overcome wind resistance. Increasing speed to 90 mph from 65 mph increases the power requirement by 2.6 times. Rolling resistance however is roughly proportional to speed. Add it to the mix and a few other factors like lift drag and you get a miles per gallon decrease of about 90% in conventional tech petrol engined cars between 65 and 90mph.
To get 30mpg is a miracle in your BMW is a testament to the engineering involved.
The car will perform the same figures as those achieved under test if subject to the same test conditions, I guarantee it. You and your wife's driving techniques are wildly at odds with the test profile though. The figures are therefore irrelevant. Eco Pro is all about helping you adapt your driving technique toward a more efficient one. If you ignore the techniques then it can do nothing.
The op isn't daft. He knows that he drives in a spirited fashion, he admits as such in the first line of his first post, and he knows that if he drives at 43 mph he'll probably get close to the stated figures. To constantly have people post that on this thread is frustratingly obvious. No one has accused BMW of lying on this point.
The point is that a BMW is sold as a fun car to drive. Its sold as a drivers car to enthusiasts. There they are quoting figures that they know are unlikley to be realised by the vast majority of people who drive them.
Perhaps though the biggest con is that if you drive the car at 43 you get a consumption figure which BMW have cleverly engineered to be high. Go outside that small range, in other words drive rthe car in a spirited fashion and the clever evolution of BMW engineering seems not to be that cever anymore as you can start to compare similarly with a much older car.
In other words the op is right in his initial post. Buying a new car for its economy doesn't SEEM to buy you 100% better engineering.
A cynical person would say it buys you the same old car you've just sold off with a new fuel map designed to exploit a small point in the fuel map rev range.
Which is okay if you've just bought a bluemotion designed and advertised to be boring as hell but fuel efficient if driven like a nun, but disingenuous if you've bought an enthusiasts car. It isn't stupid of people to look at misleading adverts and believe engines have undergone a massive revolution in efficiency when that simply isn't true.
My E90 330d which is manual and 2wd obviously gives 44.5-45mpg on my commute which is 80 miles of M4 at a cruise controlled 80mph. Would have expected far better than the figures quoted on your return journey given the speed.
I think running in may be the issue, but I would have thought 10mpg better when driving at 85mph.
I think running in may be the issue, but I would have thought 10mpg better when driving at 85mph.
Frik said:
Anywho, to the OP, I wonder what the figures had been like of you'd have not used cruise. 90-100 mph uphill isn't the most efficient way to travel.
I'd say cruise isn't the most efficient method, as it can't see there is a big up hill after a downhill section where most drivers would build up some speed but the route through France was relatively flat so in this case it may only account for perhaps 1 mpg.I'm running a F30 330d X Drive and getting 37-38 mpg average across the first 2500 miles. My commute is 35 miles each way, mostly A/B roads.
I have seen 43-44 on a run using eco pro but as stated, once you go about 70 I see no difference.
I had a 320d for a couple of months before the 330d and would see 50 mpg without even trying.
Great car though, very happy with it.
I have seen 43-44 on a run using eco pro but as stated, once you go about 70 I see no difference.
I had a 320d for a couple of months before the 330d and would see 50 mpg without even trying.
Great car though, very happy with it.
pedrotunes said:
I'm running a F30 330d X Drive and getting 37-38 mpg average across the first 2500 miles. My commute is 35 miles each way, mostly A/B roads.
I have seen 43-44 on a run using eco pro but as stated, once you go about 70 I see no difference.
I had a 320d for a couple of months before the 330d and would see 50 mpg without even trying.
Great car though, very happy with it.
Similar to my commute but worse MPG - I didn't drive slowly either so maybe she will loosen up OR the 4x4 sucks the fuel. I have seen 43-44 on a run using eco pro but as stated, once you go about 70 I see no difference.
I had a 320d for a couple of months before the 330d and would see 50 mpg without even trying.
Great car though, very happy with it.
Does anyone have 2wd mpg for this model worth noting.
Also isn't the F10 535d much more economical to the mpgs stated here.
smashy said:
I'm sure if you drove in Eco Pro at a constant 55mph on the level you'd get over 55mpg.
At those constant speeds my 120d auto 177bho ED would get around 39/41 so your about right surely.(doing a steady 70mph will get me 47/50)
I had a whole tank trip to Brugge fully laiden and it averaged via brim to brim 55mpg.
If I put it at 55mph cruise it would do way more than that.
Smash you'd be better off in a bigger heavier and much faster 330d given the mpg your getting !
Gassing Station | BMW General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff