F31 330d xdrive economy - not great
Discussion
OP just out of interest did you try to do a 50-55mph run of at least 5 miles down a motorway or dual carrageway to get a figure?
My diesel is tuned similar to yours except mine was a custom map on the rolling road, and with a 2.0 I can get down to 35 mpg around town, 40ish at 90-100 mph, but up to 59~ at 60 mph. Quite a difference depending on speed.
I expect the xDrive is also at least 5% less efficient due to 4WD, but that's a guess
My diesel is tuned similar to yours except mine was a custom map on the rolling road, and with a 2.0 I can get down to 35 mpg around town, 40ish at 90-100 mph, but up to 59~ at 60 mph. Quite a difference depending on speed.
I expect the xDrive is also at least 5% less efficient due to 4WD, but that's a guess
Welshbeef said:
Also isn't the F10 535d much more economical to the mpgs stated here.
Yes, I have one and it will rarely go below 40 mpg on a run - my commute is 55 miles mainly motorway and A road and I get from 40 in the evening doing 90 to 45 in the morning when traffic is lower. It has 42 mpg average over first 25k miles and is accurate based miles per tank.My wife has 30d X3 which will do 37ish on a run and should be much worse than the f31 give it's shape so OP's numbers sound low - I would hope for better once run in
stuart-b said:
OP just out of interest did you try to do a 50-55mph run of at least 5 miles down a motorway or dual carrageway to get a figure?
My diesel is tuned similar to yours except mine was a custom map on the rolling road, and even with a 2.0 I can get 35 mpg around town, 40ish at 90-100 mph, and 59~ at 60 mph. Quite a difference.
I expect the xDrive is also at least 5% less efficient due to 4WD, but that's a guess
X drive v2wd difference wouldn't be on BMW website My diesel is tuned similar to yours except mine was a custom map on the rolling road, and even with a 2.0 I can get 35 mpg around town, 40ish at 90-100 mph, and 59~ at 60 mph. Quite a difference.
I expect the xDrive is also at least 5% less efficient due to 4WD, but that's a guess
julian64 said:
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 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.
Sorry but I think you are the one missing the point. Our cars are way more efficient those of just a decade ago BUT they can not overcome the laws of physics highlighted above. If you drive at 90 - 100mph as the OP did then 35mpg is remarkable. Quite why you would criticise BMW for producing a car that "only" does 35mpg at close to a ton is beyond me. 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.
I agree the way MPG figures are produced are a bit of a scam, but that applies to all manufacturers.
Roo3Stuart said:
Yes, I have one and it will rarely go below 40 mpg on a run - my commute is 55 miles mainly motorway and A road and I get from 40 in the evening doing 90 to 45 in the morning when traffic is lower. It has 42 mpg average over first 25k miles and is accurate based miles per tank.
My wife has 30d X3 which will do 37ish on a run and should be much worse than the f31 give it's shape so OP's numbers sound low - I would hope for better once run in
Amazing figures.Really are.My wife has 30d X3 which will do 37ish on a run and should be much worse than the f31 give it's shape so OP's numbers sound low - I would hope for better once run in
'33mpg averaging 90-100mph' + Tuning Box = not getting proper economy figures - shocker!
I'd take it back to BMW immediately and make a very stern complaint!
Seriously.....
I'd be happy with those sort of figures... However shirley your biggest concern isn't the fuel economy it is the French Police!
I'd take it back to BMW immediately and make a very stern complaint!
Seriously.....
I'd be happy with those sort of figures... However shirley your biggest concern isn't the fuel economy it is the French Police!
Official numbers
2wd F31 330d Msport
Urban 44.8
Combined 55.4
Extra Urban 62.8
XDrive F31 330d Msport
Urban 42.8
Combined 52.3
Extra urban 60.1
So just over 2mpg in each type of test
Tanking round at 100mph and a non run in engine what your getting seems logical. Slow down 10mph it will save you a heap in fuel and cost you minutes extra on a drive.
2wd F31 330d Msport
Urban 44.8
Combined 55.4
Extra Urban 62.8
XDrive F31 330d Msport
Urban 42.8
Combined 52.3
Extra urban 60.1
So just over 2mpg in each type of test
Tanking round at 100mph and a non run in engine what your getting seems logical. Slow down 10mph it will save you a heap in fuel and cost you minutes extra on a drive.
The cars (e90 to f10)have got heavier and bigger and have more drag (better coefficient but bigger frontal area). The engines have got more efficient and a hell of a lot cleaner but in the real world consume the same fuel per mile that they always used to..
I'm suprised you didn't know this.
The actual thermal efficiency of piston passenger vehicle engines has only increased a few percent in recent years despite test consumption figures jumping by many times that figure. It's just because they've been engineered to game the test.
In the real world a lightweight simple car like an MX5 will monster an equivalent diesel hatchback.
You can't beat the physics. New SARS are expensive and no better on fuel and no faster than the previous model. Add in electric steering and aural blandness and things are actually going backwards for us enthusiasts.
I'm suprised you didn't know this.
The actual thermal efficiency of piston passenger vehicle engines has only increased a few percent in recent years despite test consumption figures jumping by many times that figure. It's just because they've been engineered to game the test.
In the real world a lightweight simple car like an MX5 will monster an equivalent diesel hatchback.
You can't beat the physics. New SARS are expensive and no better on fuel and no faster than the previous model. Add in electric steering and aural blandness and things are actually going backwards for us enthusiasts.
converted lurker said:
The cars (e90 to f10)have got heavier and bigger and have more drag (better coefficient but bigger frontal area). The engines have got more efficient and a hell of a lot cleaner but in the real world consume the same fuel per mile that they always used to..
I'm suprised you didn't know this.
The actual thermal efficiency of piston passenger vehicle engines has only increased a few percent in recent years despite test consumption figures jumping by many times that figure. It's just because they've been engineered to game the test.
In the real world a lightweight simple car like an MX5 will monster an equivalent diesel hatchback.
You can't beat the physics. New SARS are expensive and no better on fuel and no faster than the previous model. Add in electric steering and aural blandness and things are actually going backwards for us enthusiasts.
I don't agree. My F10 535d is more efficient than the e60 530d it replaced despite having more power and being much faster. Same driver, same journey, it uses less fuel. No idea why or how, it just does.I'm suprised you didn't know this.
The actual thermal efficiency of piston passenger vehicle engines has only increased a few percent in recent years despite test consumption figures jumping by many times that figure. It's just because they've been engineered to game the test.
In the real world a lightweight simple car like an MX5 will monster an equivalent diesel hatchback.
You can't beat the physics. New SARS are expensive and no better on fuel and no faster than the previous model. Add in electric steering and aural blandness and things are actually going backwards for us enthusiasts.
Here's a first in my experience - a diesel that not only betters the published combined figures but which matches the manufacturer's extra-urban figure.
http://www.porsche.com/uk/models/panamera/panamera...
I was given one as a courtesy car yesterday and a 70 mile drive home (urban, motorway & rural roads) from Glasgow to the Highlands, running at 60-80mph returned 50.6mpg. This remember is a 1900kg, 300bhp car that's longer and wider than an X5. I'm gob-smacked - will have the car for a few days so will see what the overall figure turns out to be.
http://www.porsche.com/uk/models/panamera/panamera...
I was given one as a courtesy car yesterday and a 70 mile drive home (urban, motorway & rural roads) from Glasgow to the Highlands, running at 60-80mph returned 50.6mpg. This remember is a 1900kg, 300bhp car that's longer and wider than an X5. I'm gob-smacked - will have the car for a few days so will see what the overall figure turns out to be.
The point of this thread was to really gauge if the mpg I achieved (33mpg at 90-100 mph and 35mpg 85-90) was typical for this model. I’m not that bothered as I can afford to drive it fast and not worry about the cost.
I went for a diesel because in the main my wife uses it and she is a gentle driver so I’d expect her restraint to offset the cost of my recklessness ! What I’m not seeing at the moment is the mpg improving much when she is behind the wheel. Perhaps it will as the engine and drivetrain loosen up over the next few thousand miles.
PS. I did get pulled by the cops as did lots of Frenchies by the way, as they’d set up a hidden speed trap on a toll section. 45 euro fine for doing an alleged 96mph, C'est la vie!
PPS. As a comparison of speed verses economy, at 145mph it only does 12 mpg !!
I went for a diesel because in the main my wife uses it and she is a gentle driver so I’d expect her restraint to offset the cost of my recklessness ! What I’m not seeing at the moment is the mpg improving much when she is behind the wheel. Perhaps it will as the engine and drivetrain loosen up over the next few thousand miles.
PS. I did get pulled by the cops as did lots of Frenchies by the way, as they’d set up a hidden speed trap on a toll section. 45 euro fine for doing an alleged 96mph, C'est la vie!
PPS. As a comparison of speed verses economy, at 145mph it only does 12 mpg !!
Sadly I do actually like the relaxed approach to performance a quick diesel gives, it easy to stonk along at speed without having to fish around with gears or being caught out not having enough revs that you get with petrol. The 8 speed auto in the BMW also results in a seemless shove as it keeps the diesel motor in it's sweet spot.
I do have a 911 to use when I want to really get stuck in so for me I have the best of both worlds.
I do have a 911 to use when I want to really get stuck in so for me I have the best of both worlds.
Edited by lambo911 on Thursday 9th January 11:56
lambo911 said:
Sadly I do actually like the relaxed approach to performance a quick diesel gives, it easy to stonk along at speed without having to fish around with gears or being caught out not having enough revs that you get with petrol. The 8 speed auto in the BMW also results in a seemless shove as it keeps the diesel motor in it's sweet spot.
I do have a 911 to use when I want to really get stuck in so for me I have the best of both worlds.
All fair enough but IMHO an F31 335i auto would offer the same sort of effortless go with far more refinement that a 330d; I drove an F31 330d X-drive a few weeks back and frankly the engine was like a bag of spanners compared to the N55 in my E92 335i! I accept the difference wouldn't be as noticeable when cruising on a motorway but if money was no object I wouldn't give the diesel a second glance unless I was doing a high mileage and wanted something with a longer range. Each to their own though, would be a boring world if we all thought the same!I do have a 911 to use when I want to really get stuck in so for me I have the best of both worlds.
Edited by lambo911 on Thursday 9th January 11:56
JNW1 said:
lambo911 said:
Sadly I do actually like the relaxed approach to performance a quick diesel gives, it easy to stonk along at speed without having to fish around with gears or being caught out not having enough revs that you get with petrol. The 8 speed auto in the BMW also results in a seemless shove as it keeps the diesel motor in it's sweet spot.
I do have a 911 to use when I want to really get stuck in so for me I have the best of both worlds.
All fair enough but IMHO an F31 335i auto would offer the same sort of effortless go with far more refinement that a 330d; I drove an F31 330d X-drive a few weeks back and frankly the engine was like a bag of spanners compared to the N55 in my E92 335i! I accept the difference wouldn't be as noticeable when cruising on a motorway but if money was no object I wouldn't give the diesel a second glance unless I was doing a high mileage and wanted something with a longer range. Each to their own though, would be a boring world if we all thought the same!I do have a 911 to use when I want to really get stuck in so for me I have the best of both worlds.
Edited by lambo911 on Thursday 9th January 11:56
I got enough shocked faces when I rocked up at work in my N52'd 330i 12 months ago. People proclaiming madness at getting a big petrol and not the diesel equivalent. Until I pointed out the mileage I do (c10k), the difference in fuel costs and the marginal difference in mpg.
Thought I would post here rather than start again.
2016 BMW 330d Touring X Drive 4000 miles. 60 mile A road commute. Odd blast but nothing stupid, 37mpg.
Bit disappointed. Reference is M135i which got 31mpg and MINI Cooper S which got 42mpg. Both did 83-85% of quoted combined , this is doing just over 70%. Also takes forever to get up to temp, but guess it's cold. Cause for concern or am I being a drama queen?
2016 BMW 330d Touring X Drive 4000 miles. 60 mile A road commute. Odd blast but nothing stupid, 37mpg.
Bit disappointed. Reference is M135i which got 31mpg and MINI Cooper S which got 42mpg. Both did 83-85% of quoted combined , this is doing just over 70%. Also takes forever to get up to temp, but guess it's cold. Cause for concern or am I being a drama queen?
Gassing Station | BMW General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff