535D, LCI, economy - remap needed?
Discussion
gizlaroc said:
A thermostat keeps a constant temperature, if it drops into the 70s it is obviously shagged.
How can they disagree?
Odd as well that they are refusing to change what is a consumable part at the direct request of a BMW owner? How can they disagree?
Guessing it must be what a £300 dealer job+?
These things wear out on all cars over time and number of engine hours.
OP you could take them out and test them the old fashioned way
x12yhp said:
Vee said:
Get your thermostats changed !
Mine was doing similar about 3 months after I put pattern ECP stats on it (initially all was fine).
CPC had a look whilst fixing an oil leak and recommended changing to BMW ones.
The ECP pattern part, when closed was still letting coolant through as the cheap materials inside had distorted. I think the the times I did see high 80's temperature was the car trying to regen - aside from that it ran at mid 70s.
Consensus is that these engines should quickly get to mid 80s - certainly within 15-20 mins of starting.
But my numbers on the temperature don't seem to be that far from expected. It does reliably get to the mid 80s, it will get higher with time and the only minor concern is that it seems to take a bit longer than expected to get there. Others are reporting temps about the same as mine, with good thermostats. What about my info makes you convinced that the thermostats are duff?Mine was doing similar about 3 months after I put pattern ECP stats on it (initially all was fine).
CPC had a look whilst fixing an oil leak and recommended changing to BMW ones.
The ECP pattern part, when closed was still letting coolant through as the cheap materials inside had distorted. I think the the times I did see high 80's temperature was the car trying to regen - aside from that it ran at mid 70s.
Consensus is that these engines should quickly get to mid 80s - certainly within 15-20 mins of starting.
Are BMW engines just slow to get to temp and economy?
Your car is over fuelling trying to get to normal operating temp which explains the poor mpg as it gets there . . . slowly.
I bet that when your stat is eventually changed you will see that the part that comes out doesn't close properly.
StuntmanMike said:
I would imagine they are electric thermostats Welshy, the older E46 uses these so the E60 defiantly should, not sure how you could check them.
Ah wasn't aware of that - thinking old fashioned take them out out into a pan heat up the pan with a thermometer in it and see it open once temp is reached take it off the heat you'll then see it close. My old man showed me purely from an education perspective as if you've taken the thermostat out of the housing and it is old its cheap as chips for the actual part (unless its not possible to take out of the housing) so would be done regardless
Welshbeef said:
OP you could take them out and test them the old fashioned way
There's no point in doing that - the parts are just over £100 at a BMW dealer (don't fit aftermarket stats as they are variable in quality) and its a fiddly knuckle-scraping job and you're going to lose coolant while doing it, absolutely no point in taking on a job like this to not replace the parts.GreigM said:
Welshbeef said:
OP you could take them out and test them the old fashioned way
There's no point in doing that - the parts are just over £100 at a BMW dealer (don't fit aftermarket stats as they are variable in quality) and its a fiddly knuckle-scraping job and you're going to lose coolant while doing it, absolutely no point in taking on a job like this to not replace the parts.Another quick question... When I got the car, BMW did a health check which indicated that there was an oil leak. This needed two gaskets changed which included other bits to the effect of intercooler and crankcase breather. Now, I had not had the car so long so I cannot be sure but it feels like the economy got notably worse straight after this... is that plausible? Whilst asking, would checking something like the thermostat operation not be something they should have checked out?
x12yhp said:
Another quick question... When I got the car, BMW did a health check which indicated that there was an oil leak. This needed two gaskets changed which included other bits to the effect of intercooler and crankcase breather. Now, I had not had the car so long so I cannot be sure but it feels like the economy got notably worse straight after this... is that plausible? Whilst asking, would checking something like the thermostat operation not be something they should have checked out?
They do a 100 point check if its not on the list its not done. x12yhp said:
Another quick question... When I got the car, BMW did a health check which indicated that there was an oil leak. This needed two gaskets changed which included other bits to the effect of intercooler and crankcase breather. Now, I had not had the car so long so I cannot be sure but it feels like the economy got notably worse straight after this... is that plausible? Whilst asking, would checking something like the thermostat operation not be something they should have checked out?
Checking the thermostats would involve taking the car off the ramp, so there is zero chance they went to that level of effort.x12yhp said:
Sorry, I think the car is 2008.
The skoda was a superb 2012, 170BHP diesel. It supposedly will do 60 mpg and this is what I got over 20k mileage. On a 60mph motorway run, I would easily get 65 and sometimes in excess of 70mpg. So it annoys me immensely that the same driving style cannot get anywhere near to what BMW quote. I can be very confident that it IS possible to get the numbers quoted by Skoda so I am inclined to suggest, given my experience and what people are saying, that BMW are talking through their backsides.
I had hoped that the 535D would be a great fun car which could still be frugal (according to the stats) on the motorway. From all that is being posted here, this seems not to be the case. I suspect it won't last all that long in my garage and I don't know I could believe any future BMW stats.
The BMW, has one more turbo, 2 extra cylinders, 1 litre extra capacity and over 110bhp more for starters. If you want to start making those sorts of comparisons, you really should have bought the 520d. The skoda was a superb 2012, 170BHP diesel. It supposedly will do 60 mpg and this is what I got over 20k mileage. On a 60mph motorway run, I would easily get 65 and sometimes in excess of 70mpg. So it annoys me immensely that the same driving style cannot get anywhere near to what BMW quote. I can be very confident that it IS possible to get the numbers quoted by Skoda so I am inclined to suggest, given my experience and what people are saying, that BMW are talking through their backsides.
I had hoped that the 535D would be a great fun car which could still be frugal (according to the stats) on the motorway. From all that is being posted here, this seems not to be the case. I suspect it won't last all that long in my garage and I don't know I could believe any future BMW stats.
The tests are independent. http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/fcb/the-fuel-consumption...
I've just bought an LCI 535d to replace the LCI 530d I had nicked off my driveway, on it's inaugural trip, following the missus back home, it averaged 40mpg at an average trip speed of just over 70mph, so pretty happy with that.
Rear wheel drive, by design, is inherently less fuel efficient than front wheel drive, although you've now lost torque steer, under-steer and gained over-steer and the ability to go past > 95% of most cars on the road
x12yhp said:
Another quick question... When I got the car, BMW did a health check which indicated that there was an oil leak. This needed two gaskets changed which included other bits to the effect of intercooler and crankcase breather. Now, I had not had the car so long so I cannot be sure but it feels like the economy got notably worse straight after this... is that plausible? Whilst asking, would checking something like the thermostat operation not be something they should have checked out?
I think the above is the route of your troubles? I understand that an engine works and is most eff at operating temp (all the threads leading to that point are important), so the thermostat is relevant BUT the clue is in your words:"This needed two gaskets changed which included other bits to the effect of intercooler and crankcase breather. Now, I had not had the car so long so I cannot be sure but it feels like the economy got notably worse straight after this"
An ill fitting gasket or one where a "seal" on the intercooler or crankcase breather is not made will affect the fuel consumption...dramatically..IMHO? I would get these rechecked??
bigdom said:
The BMW, has one more turbo, 2 extra cylinders, 1 litre extra capacity and over 110bhp more for starters. If you want to start making those sorts of comparisons, you really should have bought the 520d.
The tests are independent. http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/fcb/the-fuel-consumption...
I've just bought an LCI 535d to replace the LCI 530d I had nicked off my driveway, on it's inaugural trip, following the missus back home, it averaged 40mpg at an average trip speed of just over 70mph, so pretty happy with that.
Rear wheel drive, by design, is inherently less fuel efficient than front wheel drive, although you've now lost torque steer, under-steer and gained over-steer and the ability to go past > 95% of most cars on the road
If I understand the OP correctly, he's not trying to compare the fuel consumption of a 535d with a Skoda Superb, the point he's making is that the Skoda appeared to be capable of hitting its claimed figure whereas the BMW doesn't? Whether the 535d offers good economy for the performance on offer is really a separate issue!The tests are independent. http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/fcb/the-fuel-consumption...
I've just bought an LCI 535d to replace the LCI 530d I had nicked off my driveway, on it's inaugural trip, following the missus back home, it averaged 40mpg at an average trip speed of just over 70mph, so pretty happy with that.
Rear wheel drive, by design, is inherently less fuel efficient than front wheel drive, although you've now lost torque steer, under-steer and gained over-steer and the ability to go past > 95% of most cars on the road
JNW1 said:
If I understand the OP correctly, he's not trying to compare the fuel consumption of a 535d with a Skoda Superb, the point he's making is that the Skoda appeared to be capable of hitting its claimed figure whereas the BMW doesn't? Whether the 535d offers good economy for the performance on offer is really a separate issue!
But what the OP has to understand is the official combined and urban figure is based on an average speed of 39mph, do any other speed and official figures mean nothing. gizlaroc said:
But what the OP has to understand is the official combined and urban figure is based on an average speed of 39mph, do any other speed and official figures mean nothing.
Don't disagree but unless I'm misunderstanding the point he's making is that his diesel Skoda hit its combined figure over 20k miles whereas his BMW (and BMW's generally) seem incapable of doing so (with the implication being that BMW's claimed figures are less reliable than those from other manufacturers). I've never had a Skoda and hence can't comment on the mpg for one of those; however, I've had a number of BMW's and can confirm that none of the diesels have been able to get anywhere near their respective combined figures. However, my petrol 335i did get reasonably close - and would exceed it on a run - and best of all in terms of achieving its combined figure was actually my E46 M3 CS!Gassing Station | BMW General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff