F15 X5 MPG

[worsy]

Indeed. I got 9% off but the order book is full enough to have to wait 4 months +.

The mpg figures can only be used for comparison, if they stack up favourably against the A6 then they should reflect that in real life. My E70 40D has averaged 30mpg over 31k miles if that helps.

[2.5pi]

rubberduck182 said:

Thinking of ordering an F15 40D too but trying to work out realistic MPG vs quoted 45. Sounds like 35-40 should be achievable on a long motorway run and 30+ on country/A roads? Comparing it with an Allroad BiTdi which is the other option, but I fancy a (first) BMW after 4 Audis. Appreciate the X5 is a bigger lump, but confusing that the official mpg figures are so far out from real life.

It really depends how fast you cruise on the motorway, I've just finished a 145 mile run at the maximum possible speed without losing my licence if I miss a speed trap or get picked out by an undercover patrol car. So no triple figures !

I averaged 33.5 which I was pretty happy with, but there was a few 50 mph average speed camera roadworks to help the numbers.

On an A road and doing 50 ish I get 38 mpg

HTH

[rubberduck182]

Thanks for tips re longer test drives/possible discount. Must admit I've not noticed many F15s on the roads yet - may just be that they're less obvious.

Good to hear about mpg from 2.5pi. Sounds better than my current Allroad at those speeds so I'd be very happy with that.

[Zod]

worsy said:

Encouraging. I have an F15 40d on order due first week of July. My E70 40d shows 29.7 from 31k miles.

Will probably look at one for later this year, but I'm tempted by the M50d.

[rj1986]

I must be light on the pedal then!
I get about 28mpg on a 3.0d E70 (early model with the 6 speed)- 40 mile commute each way- towns and B roads on the way in, and towns and A-roads jams on the way home. Standing traffic both ways.

I would've thought the newer 8 speed ZF would give you around 35 average, or am i being too optimistic.

[Schermerhorn]

How far off are these figure from the manufacturer claims? And are the 'official' figures a load of unrealistic tosh?

[gizlaroc]

Schermerhorn said:

How far off are these figure from the manufacturer claims? And are the 'official' figures a load of unrealistic tosh?

Depends if you understand the official figures or not.

But no, not achievable.

[B17NNS]

Isn't it supposed to average 45mpg?

[rubberduck182]

Yup, 45 for the new 40D (313hp). Seems pretty optimistic, as does the 40 the dealer suggested. I'm not after 40, just confidence that it won't be sub-30 which is the limit I've agreed with Mrs Duck.

I'm waiting for a longer test drive to get a feel and have the Allroad BiTdi for a day next week too. Same hp, interesting to see how it compares (officially 42) - appreciate it's a different shape.

I just saw something about run flats and associated costs. Some horror stories out there - can they really be that bad? There is loads of talk of folks even switching cars because of it. I'm surprised if true - why would BMW stick with them for so long if they're so unpopular?

[laingy]

my e70 3.5d manages 27mpg with a complete mistrure of driving. On a long run (down to the alps) it struggles to get above 30-31mpg. It is very speed dependant, mpg drops off padly the faster you go.

[gizlaroc]

B17NNS said:

Isn't it supposed to average 45mpg?

But the average is calculated for motorway cruising at 39mph.

Will cruise at 39mph?

No. Then you wont get 45mpg.


I always look at the US site, I tend to get their City figure on every diesel I have owned, if they list it.
They don't do many.

They do do the 40d, but they still call it the 35d, and they say 27mpg urban and 37mpg Highway, which is an avaerage of 55mph over about 60miles, so pretty accurate.


So I would expect 29 average and 34 on a 75mph cruise.

[gizlaroc]

Audi USA have the 3.0tdi in saloon form now, and they have that as 2mpg better round town and 1mpg better highway.
Add in the extra weight of the allroad and then the bi-turbo and you will probably be about the same as the X5.

[rj1986]

gizlaroc said:

Audi USA have the 3.0tdi in saloon form now, and they have that as 2mpg better round town and 1mpg better highway.
Add in the extra weight of the allroad and then the bi-turbo and you will probably be about the same as the X5.

Is that an african or europrean swallow US gallons or Imperial/Correct gallons

[B17NNS]

gizlaroc said:

But the average is calculated for motorway cruising at 39mph.

I didn't know that was how they come up with the 'combined' figure.

The numbers really are a joke considering how much emphasis the buying public put on them.

[Phateuk]

B17NNS said:

gizlaroc said:

But the average is calculated for motorway cruising at 39mph.

I didn't know that was how they come up with the 'combined' figure.

The numbers really are a joke considering how much emphasis the buying public put on them.

The figures are there purely to compare between different cars to give a level playing field for the testing. Car A gets 35mpg and car B gets 40mpg, then car B is more economical, this doesn't mean that car B will achieve 40mpg when used out on the road.

For more info look at what the NEDC test comprises of: Wikipedia link

[B17NNS]

Phateuk said:

The figures are there purely to compare between different cars to give a level playing field for the testing. Car A gets 35mpg and car B gets 40mpg, then car B is more economical, this doesn't mean that car B will achieve 40mpg when used out on the road.

I know what you're saying but don't you think that's just plain nonsense?

If the figure doesn't relate to real world mpg and is purely for comparison purposes then why put 'mpg' after it? Why not use the number as an energy rating?

Or an even crazier idea, why not make the test more accurate.

[gizlaroc]

Phateuk said:

The figures are there purely to compare between different cars to give a level playing field for the testing. Car A gets 35mpg and car B gets 40mpg, then car B is more economical, this doesn't mean that car B will achieve 40mpg when used out on the road.

For more info look at what the NEDC test comprises of: Wikipedia link

But that is so wrong. It tells you nothing other than what they do at 39mph average.

It is not a good comparison unless you drive everywhere at 39mph.



You can gear a car to give me 80mpg at 40mph, even though it might only do 40mpg sat at 80mph, then you gear another one to to do 80mpg at 80mph.

All the tests tell you about is what they do at 40mph, If you sit at 80mph all day long it isn't really telling you alot. We had a Toyota Aygo, it did 50mpg sat at 40mph, but at 80mph it was only doing around 30mpg.

As I said, unless you replicate the test, the test tells you fk all.

[gizlaroc]

rj1986 said:

gizlaroc said:

Audi USA have the 3.0tdi in saloon form now, and they have that as 2mpg better round town and 1mpg better highway.
Add in the extra weight of the allroad and then the bi-turbo and you will probably be about the same as the X5.

Is that an african or europrean swallow US gallons or Imperial/Correct gallons

Converted back to UK gallons.
I thought it best as many struggle with the concept of basic maths and physics on here.

[Skrambles]

Zod said:

worsy said:

Encouraging. I have an F15 40d on order due first week of July. My E70 40d shows 29.7 from 31k miles.

Will probably look at one for later this year, but I'm tempted by the M50d.

Has anyone bought or test driven the m50d? How is the ride/performance and mpg?

I've only seen 2 F15s on the road (both of them white), but loads of new Range Rovers. Is the new x5 not that impressive to drive?

[drmotorsport]

Wow all you diesel guys make me feel much better about my 22mpg from my e53 4.8is, you can keep your 5ish extra mpg and particulates!