Mk3 2.0 economy?

[Pulse]

I've had 2 Mk2s before and they were pretty awful when it came to consumption. Is the Mk3 any better?

I just sold my Z4 3.0 so I'd want better economy than that if I did buy one. I got about 26 round town and about 35 on the motorway.

[Shaw Tarse]

I've never bothered working out what MPG I get, but one PHer has posted what they get. (can't remember who, or what thread)

[youngsyr]

My Mk 2 returns around 28-30 mpg on normal unleaded and I wouldn't call that particularly bad. Are there any performance cars that have significantly better economy than that?

[Pulse]

youngsyr said:

My Mk 2 returns around 28-30 mpg on normal unleaded and I wouldn't call that particularly bad. Are there any performance cars that have significantly better economy than that?

I got about 26-28 from my Mk2s and yes my Z4 had 265bhp and was better on fuel!

[youngsyr]

Pulse said:

youngsyr said:

My Mk 2 returns around 28-30 mpg on normal unleaded and I wouldn't call that particularly bad. Are there any performance cars that have significantly better economy than that?

I got about 26-28 from my Mk2s and yes my Z4 had 265bhp and was better on fuel!

There's a difference between better and significantly better though.

IMO it's pointless to worry about economy when the difference in fuel cost between 28 mpg and 35 mpg is around £350 per 10,000 miles.

I would imagine that the additional cost of servicing the BMW alone would eat up most of the difference in the savings on fuel, let alone the additional depreciation, tax, insurance, replacement of consumables, etc. etc.

[Porkbrain]

I bought a new 2.0 Aircon model this April, after 2,800 miles of town, A and B roads with only a couple of hundred miles on motorways the trip for the mpg which I haven't reset since day one reads 30.8 mpg, and I do of course floor it when warmed up.

[Pulse]

Fair comment on 350 a year difference. That said, my BMW was nowhere near that to service each year! More like in average 175 a year!

[hornetrider]

Shaw Tarse said:

I've never bothered working out what MPG I get, but one PHer has posted what they get. (can't remember who, or what thread)

Probably me.

My 2 litre 3.5 is currently returning a 36.2mpg average over 7000 miles. I think I read somewhere the 3.5 is more efficient than the Mk3?

[Petrol Only]

Its a 2 seater soft top.

Not a bluemotion polo.

Who cares.

If my Eunos did 100 mpg whilst driving like a granny i still wouldn't drive it like a granny. Its not what these are made for.

[Riknos]

youngsyr said:

[


IMO it's pointless to worry about economy when the difference in fuel cost between 28 mpg and 35 mpg is around £350 per 10,000 miles.

I would imagine that the additional cost of servicing the BMW alone would eat up most of the difference in the savings on fuel, let alone the additional depreciation, tax, insurance, replacement of consumables, etc. etc.

Nail hit on the head here.. the real world difference of a few mpg difference between cars really doesn't have that big an effect. I hear of people chopping in their existing cars to buy brand new diesil versions of a less reliable, greater depreciating car etc just to save an extra few mpg, when in fact it costs them more in the long run due to reasons ^ as above. Madness.

[B0LLIKS]

just to add my mpg.....37.7, MK 3.5 2L. mostly commuting. never reset since i got the car, but has only done just over 500 mls
ah just seen you said MK3. the MK3.5 is a tad better i hear.

Edited by B0LLIKS on Wednesday 13th October 16:39

[Shaw Tarse]

hornetrider said:

Shaw Tarse said:

I've never bothered working out what MPG I get, but one PHer has posted what they get. (can't remember who, or what thread)

Probably me.

My 2 litre 3.5 is currently returning a 36.2mpg average over 7000 miles. I think I read somewhere the 3.5 is more efficient than the Mk3?

Is it you who has an app for that?
As for OP, driving with roof & windows down will increase fuel consumption, but I still drive like that as often as possible

[Pulse]

Petrol Only said:

Who cares.

I do.

[hornetrider]

Shaw Tarse said:

hornetrider said:

Shaw Tarse said:

I've never bothered working out what MPG I get, but one PHer has posted what they get. (can't remember who, or what thread)

Probably me.

My 2 litre 3.5 is currently returning a 36.2mpg average over 7000 miles. I think I read somewhere the 3.5 is more efficient than the Mk3?

Is it you who has an app for that?

Yep.

Edited by hornetrider on Wednesday 13th October 17:38

[Ari]

MK3 2.0 litre - about 30mpg.

[pbirkett]

Even if I drive gently, I'm lucky to get 30 MPG, so I dont bother

Even when I drive really hard, I tend to get about 20, so there seems little point in grannying it

[rfn]

Long term average over 18000 miles (click for bigger):


There are a couple of gaps - one where I forgot to enter a couple of fill ups and one after my phone got stolen, but it's a good enough calculation.

Edited by rfn on Thursday 14th October 23:38

[hornetrider]

Ooh, only just figured this out!

[mAxiecAm]

Pulse said:

Fair comment on 350 a year difference. That said, my BMW was nowhere near that to service each year! More like in average 175 a year!

Why did you det rid of the BMW - I suggest you buy another if they are better on fuel than the MX5, if it concerns you so much.

We have a saying in the north, especially among the biker fraternity - BMW = Bloody make wa****