F30 Spec question
Discussion
Wills2 said:
Ah I see.
It's all a bit confusing isn't it!
Indeed it is! It's all a bit confusing isn't it!
On a slightly separate tack, I've been scratching my head as to why the range on my 335d doesn't seem to reflect fully the improved fuel consumption over my E92 335i and it was only today that I realised that the F31 has a smaller tank (57 litres against from memory 63 in the E92). I did wonder whether that was anything to do with the X-Drive but from what I see all the F31's have a smaller tank; wonder if carrying less fuel is a way of trying to keep the weight down?!!
Wills2 said:
Yep noticed that too very annoying, a car like the touring should have a 65-70 litre tank to give it a good range.
Agreed; I was hoping to be able to get around 550 miles from a tank in normal driving and closer to 600 on a run but it doesn't look like there's much chance of that! I reckon 490 to 500 miles from a tank is closer to the mark in normal driving which is less than a 20% improvement over my E92 335i; on a run I suspect the difference will be even less as the 335i would easily better its combined figure in those circumstances whereas the 335d doesn't feel like it would hit its combined figure of 50mpg in a month of Sundays! In fairness the performance/economy mix of the 335d is still pretty decent in absolute terms and I'm still very happy with the car overall; however, if I'm honest I'm slightly disappointed that the improvement in economy and range over my E92 335i isn't more significant. On the more general point of tank size, it seems like manufacturers are starting to use the benefit of improved fuel efficiency to fit smaller tanks as my cousin found the same when he changed his Octavia VRs for a new model; the fuel consumption is better but the tank is smaller with the net effect being the range is about the same!
I have a 328i M Sport with electric folding mirrors but no electric seats. The tilting passenger mirror is activated by moving the mirror changeover switch (which controls which mirror you adjust). In the driver side position, the mirror dips on selecting reverse, in the passenger side position, the mirror doesn't dip.
This is all covered in the user manual, perhaps people should read these?
This is all covered in the user manual, perhaps people should read these?
JNW1 said:
Wills2 said:
Yep noticed that too very annoying, a car like the touring should have a 65-70 litre tank to give it a good range.
Agreed; I was hoping to be able to get around 550 miles from a tank in normal driving and closer to 600 on a run but it doesn't look like there's much chance of that! I reckon 490 to 500 miles from a tank is closer to the mark in normal driving which is less than a 20% improvement over my E92 335i; on a run I suspect the difference will be even less as the 335i would easily better its combined figure in those circumstances whereas the 335d doesn't feel like it would hit its combined figure of 50mpg in a month of Sundays! In fairness the performance/economy mix of the 335d is still pretty decent in absolute terms and I'm still very happy with the car overall; however, if I'm honest I'm slightly disappointed that the improvement in economy and range over my E92 335i isn't more significant. On the more general point of tank size, it seems like manufacturers are starting to use the benefit of improved fuel efficiency to fit smaller tanks as my cousin found the same when he changed his Octavia VRs for a new model; the fuel consumption is better but the tank is smaller with the net effect being the range is about the same!
Johnthepotter said:
I have a 328i M Sport with electric folding mirrors but no electric seats. The tilting passenger mirror is activated by moving the mirror changeover switch (which controls which mirror you adjust). In the driver side position, the mirror dips on selecting reverse, in the passenger side position, the mirror doesn't dip.
This is all covered in the user manual, perhaps people should read these?
This is all covered in the user manual, perhaps people should read these?
I did read this in the manual and it implied you just needed electrics mirrors, but the sales brochure says its part of the electric seat option and when I tried it on a f30 without folding mirrors it of course did not work.
It looks like it's the 430 option which seems to come with the folding mirrors.
Johnthepotter said:
Oh well, I am as confused as everyone else then. I don't know what the 430 option is but as I said in my post, I have folding mirrors but not electric seats and the mirror tilt works as per manual. Why are things so damn complicated eh ???
That's the same as me, folding mirrors and the tilting mirror but no electric seats. Wills2 said:
I've come from an e92 M3 so I do feel the difference in range from 300-350 on a run to 500 but if it had the bigger tank of the e92 it would be nearer 600.
In fairness I wouldn't be far off the 550 mile range I was hoping for in normal driving if the car had the same size tank as the E9x; never thought they'd reduce it for the F3x but my fault for not checking! Still relatively early days on the mpg front (not yet clocked 3k miles) but I'm getting the distinct impression that the 335d is going to miss its claimed combined figure by rather more than my E92 335i; that was around 10% down in mixed driving measured over 30k miles but the evidence so far suggests the shortfall on the 335d is likely to be closer to 20%. Having said that, the 335d is offering similar performance in a bigger, heavier, car whilst returning mpg which is about 30% better; therefore, it's not all bad news (just not quite as good as I was hoping for!).
JNW1 said:
In fairness I wouldn't be far off the 550 mile range I was hoping for in normal driving if the car had the same size tank as the E9x; never thought they'd reduce it for the F3x but my fault for not checking!
Still relatively early days on the mpg front (not yet clocked 3k miles) but I'm getting the distinct impression that the 335d is going to miss its claimed combined figure by rather more than my E92 335i; that was around 10% down in mixed driving measured over 30k miles but the evidence so far suggests the shortfall on the 335d is likely to be closer to 20%. Having said that, the 335d is offering similar performance in a bigger, heavier, car whilst returning mpg which is about 30% better; therefore, it's not all bad news (just not quite as good as I was hoping for!).
When your used to 22 mpg an average of 40 (ish) is good news, I've just about halved my spend on fuel from 600 to just over 300 per month.Still relatively early days on the mpg front (not yet clocked 3k miles) but I'm getting the distinct impression that the 335d is going to miss its claimed combined figure by rather more than my E92 335i; that was around 10% down in mixed driving measured over 30k miles but the evidence so far suggests the shortfall on the 335d is likely to be closer to 20%. Having said that, the 335d is offering similar performance in a bigger, heavier, car whilst returning mpg which is about 30% better; therefore, it's not all bad news (just not quite as good as I was hoping for!).
I always knock 20% off the average as a rule when looking at the booked MPG, like you say though the tank is annoying.
The car felt pretty quick tonight though in sport+ using the paddles seems to come alive, I'll use that setting more often, although that won't help the MPG got 23mpg going over the moors tonight.
You can't have it all and I couldn't suffer a 320d.
JNW1 said:
Indeed it is!
On a slightly separate tack, I've been scratching my head as to why the range on my 335d doesn't seem to reflect fully the improved fuel consumption over my E92 335i and it was only today that I realised that the F31 has a smaller tank (57 litres against from memory 63 in the E92). I did wonder whether that was anything to do with the X-Drive but from what I see all the F31's have a smaller tank; wonder if carrying less fuel is a way of trying to keep the weight down?!!
Sorry for the OT: The new C class takes this to new levels, with the standard tank now 41 litres, rather than the 66 litres of the previous model, and which is offered as a cost option.On a slightly separate tack, I've been scratching my head as to why the range on my 335d doesn't seem to reflect fully the improved fuel consumption over my E92 335i and it was only today that I realised that the F31 has a smaller tank (57 litres against from memory 63 in the E92). I did wonder whether that was anything to do with the X-Drive but from what I see all the F31's have a smaller tank; wonder if carrying less fuel is a way of trying to keep the weight down?!!
Wills2 said:
When your used to 22 mpg an average of 40 (ish) is good news, I've just about halved my spend on fuel from 600 to just over 300 per month.
I always knock 20% off the average as a rule when looking at the booked MPG, like you say though the tank is annoying.
The car felt pretty quick tonight though in sport+ using the paddles seems to come alive, I'll use that setting more often, although that won't help the MPG got 23mpg going over the moors tonight.
You can't have it all and I couldn't suffer a 320d.
In a way you've illustrated my point though; 22mpg from an E92 M3 isn't anything like 20% down on the combined figure whereas 40mpg from an F31 335d certainly is! I'd also bet that on a run the M3 would hit the combined figure (circa 25mpg?) or even better it slightly without soft-pedalling for economy; in contrast, I don't think I'd get anywhere near 50mpg from my 335d unless I drove in such a way as to render buying that model pointless (why get a 335d to stooge along like a granny in the inside lane?!). Clearly the mpg on the diesel is still better in absolute terms than either an M3 or a 335i but the point I was making was that the difference seems to be rather less than the published figures would have you believe; perhaps the consumption on my 335d will improve as it loosens-up but I don't see it being "only" 10% down on the combined figure in normal driving like my 335!I always knock 20% off the average as a rule when looking at the booked MPG, like you say though the tank is annoying.
The car felt pretty quick tonight though in sport+ using the paddles seems to come alive, I'll use that setting more often, although that won't help the MPG got 23mpg going over the moors tonight.
You can't have it all and I couldn't suffer a 320d.
rassi said:
Sorry for the OT: The new C class takes this to new levels, with the standard tank now 41 litres, rather than the 66 litres of the previous model, and which is offered as a cost option.
41 litres?! I'd expect an A-class to have a bigger tank than that! Unless you're a low mileage driver you'll soon be on first name terms with the people in your local filling station; the optional 66 litre tank sounds much more like it but a disgrace you have to pay extra to get a decent range!JNW1 said:
In a way you've illustrated my point though; 22mpg from an E92 M3 isn't anything like 20% down on the combined figure whereas 40mpg from an F31 335d certainly is! I'd also bet that on a run the M3 would hit the combined figure (circa 25mpg?) or even better it slightly without soft-pedalling for economy; in contrast, I don't think I'd get anywhere near 50mpg from my 335d unless I drove in such a way as to render buying that model pointless (why get a 335d to stooge along like a granny in the inside lane?!). Clearly the mpg on the diesel is still better in absolute terms than either an M3 or a 335i but the point I was making was that the difference seems to be rather less than the published figures would have you believe; perhaps the consumption on my 335d will improve as it loosens-up but I don't see it being "only" 10% down on the combined figure in normal driving like my 335!
Yeah you can beat the combined figure in the M3 if you drive at 70mph the best I ever got was 28mpg vs. the combined of 25 on a 200 mile run. The best I've had in the 335d is 45 on the same route but that was probably at 80, you had to really nurse the m3 to get better mpg and keep it below 3000 rpm.
I understand your point and agree, I guess my point was I'm not noticing it as much due to the thirst of my last car.
On another point my tyre pressures are all over the place every time I look on the idrive they are different yesterday.
JNW1 said:
41 litres?! I'd expect an A-class to have a bigger tank than that! Unless you're a low mileage driver you'll soon be on first name terms with the people in your local filling station; the optional 66 litre tank sounds much more like it but a disgrace you have to pay extra to get a decent range!Stop complaining!!
Wills2 said:
On another point my tyre pressures are all over the place every time I look on the idrive they are different yesterday.
You would expect to see the pressures rise as you drive the car, and the temperature inside the tyre rises, and not necessarily uniformly. It is possibly to code the car to display temperatures as well as pressures for all four tyres, although I haven't done that.
Fastfred said:
I had an original X plate XR3 and that managed 175 miles per tank full.
Stop complaining!!
Can't recall what size tank the Mk3 Escort had but a range of 175 miles doesn't sound great even for a car of that type; having said that I used to have an RS Turbo and can't honestly remember what mpg or range I used to get (mainly because neither were a consideration at the time I bought and owned it!).Stop complaining!!
Edited by JNW1 on Wednesday 12th November 17:37
Gassing Station | BMW General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff